Background
In 1967, in Golak Nath vs. The State of Punjab, a bench of eleven judges (such a large bench constituted for the first time) of the Supreme Court deliberated as to whether any part of the Fundamental Rights provisions of the constitution could be revoked or limited by amendment of the constitution. This question had previously been considered in Shankari Prasad v. Union of India and Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan. In both cases, the power to amend the rights had been upheld on the basis of Article 368. Chief Justice Subba Rao writing for the majority (six judges in special bench of eleven, overruled the previous decisions) held that:
- A law to amend the constitution is a law for the purposes of Article 13.
- Article 13 prevents the passing of laws which "take away or abridge" the Fundamental Rights provisions.
- Article 368 does not contain a power to amend the constitution but only a procedure.
- The power to amend comes from the normal legislative power of Parliament.
- Therefore, amendments which "take away or abridge" the Fundamental Rights provisions cannot be passed.
Read more about this topic: Basic Structure Doctorine (Constitution Of India)
Famous quotes containing the word background:
“In the true sense one’s native land, with its background of tradition, early impressions, reminiscences and other things dear to one, is not enough to make sensitive human beings feel at home.”
—Emma Goldman (1869–1940)
“Pilate with his question “What is truth?” is gladly trotted out these days as an advocate of Christ, so as to arouse the suspicion that everything known and knowable is an illusion and to erect the cross upon that gruesome background of the impossibility of knowledge.”
—Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900)
“I had many problems in my conduct of the office being contrasted with President Kennedy’s conduct in the office, with my manner of dealing with things and his manner, with my accent and his accent, with my background and his background. He was a great public hero, and anything I did that someone didn’t approve of, they would always feel that President Kennedy wouldn’t have done that.”
—Lyndon Baines Johnson (1908–1973)