1
Question
With reference to the Shankari Prasad Deo case (1951), consider the following statements:
1. It upheld the supremacy of the Fundamental Rights
2. It interpreted that Constitutional Amendments are part of the "Law", as defined in Article 13 of the Indian Constitution.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
With reference to the Shankari Prasad Deo case (1951), consider the following statements:
1. It upheld the supremacy of the Fundamental Rights
2. It interpreted that Constitutional Amendments are part of the "Law", as defined in Article 13 of the Indian Constitution.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Open in App
Solution
The correct option is D Neither 1 nor 2
SC says that parliament can amend part 3 fundamental rights because article 13[4] and 368[3] empowers the parliament and amendment in 368 is not an ordinary law as mentioned in article 13[3] and it can't be void under article 13[2].
"The changes that were upheld by the court was that the parliament had power to amend the Constitution and the power to amend the fundamental rights as well.Court also used Principle of Harmonious Construction for balancing DPSPs and Fundamental rights.
SC says that parliament can amend part 3 fundamental rights because article 13[4] and 368[3] empowers the parliament and amendment in 368 is not an ordinary law as mentioned in article 13[3] and it can't be void under article 13[2].
"The changes that were upheld by the court was that the parliament had power to amend the Constitution and the power to amend the fundamental rights as well.Court also used Principle of Harmonious Construction for balancing DPSPs and Fundamental rights.
Suggest Corrections
2
Similar questions
View More
Join BYJU'S Learning Program
Explore more
Join BYJU'S Learning Program
