Create a custom practice set
Pick category, difficulty, number of questions, and time limit. Start instantly with your own quiz.
Generate QuizGK Question
In Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967), the Supreme Court held that Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368, but this view was later modified by Kesavananda Bharati (1973) which held that Fundamental Rights can be amended but not ______ if part of basic structure.
- abridged
- destroyed
- interpreted
- enforced
Answer: destroyed
Golak Nath (1967) Fundamental Rights and amendment power: (a) Context: Challenge to constitutional amendments affecting property rights (Articles 19(1)(f), 31); issue whether Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights, (b) Supreme Court holding (6:5): (i) Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368; Fundamental Rights are 'transcendental and immutable', (ii) Article 368 only prescribes procedure for amendment, not substantive power to amend Fundamental Rights, (iii) Applied prospective overruling: Judgment applies only to future amendments, not past amendments affecting property rights, (c) Later modification: (i) Kesavananda Bharati (1973): Modified Golak Nath; held Parliament can amend any provision including Fundamental Rights, but cannot alter 'basic structure' of Constitution, (ii) Balance: Fundamental Rights can be abridged but not destroyed if part of basic structure, (iii) Rationale: Enables constitutional adaptation while preserving core identity, (d) Applications: (i) Property rights: Golak Nath protected property rights; subsequent amendments (44th Amendment) removed property as Fundamental Right but retained constitutional protection, (ii) Basic structure: Kesavananda enabled balanced approach — amendments possible but core values protected, (e) Rationale for evolution: (i) Constitutional flexibility: Golak Nath's absolute bar on FR amendments too rigid; Kesavananda enabled adaptation while preserving core, (ii) Democratic legitimacy: Parliament needs flexibility to address contemporary challenges, but core values must be protected, (iii) Rights protection: Basic structure doctrine ensures Fundamental Rights forming part of core remain protected, (f) Illustrates constitutional evolution: Golak Nath represented strong rights protection; Kesavananda calibrated approach enables constitutional adaptation while preserving core identity; balance between flexibility, permanence essential to living constitutionalism.