All India Bar Examination (AIBE) 17-XVII Previous Year Question Papers with Answers

The correct option is D: Golak Nath V. State of Punjab.

In this case, the Supreme Court decided that a constitutional amendment is a 'law' within the meaning of Article 13(2) and therefore if it violates any of the fundamental rights it may be declared void. The court overruled its previous judgments in Shankari Prasad V. Union of India and Sajjan Singh V. State of Rajasthan, where it had held that constitutional amendments are not subject to judicial review and are outside the scope of Article 13(2).

The court in Golak Nath V. State of Punjab held that the power of amendment under Article 368 is a legislative power and not a constituent power, and that the word 'law' in Article 13(2) includes any expression of the will of the legislature, whether ordinary or extraordinary. The court also held that the fundamental rights are inviolable and cannot be abridged or taken away by any amendment. The court further held that the doctrine of prospective overruling would apply to this case, meaning that the previous amendments that had violated the fundamental rights would remain valid, but any future amendments that would do so would be void. This judgment was later overruled by the Kesavananda Bharati V. State of Kerala case, where the court held that the parliament has the power to amend any part of the constitution, including the fundamental rights, but subject to the basic structure doctrine, which means that the parliament cannot alter the essential features or the basic framework of the constitution.