UPSC Exam > UPSC Questions > Which case contended that the Parliaments pow...
Start Learning for Free
Which case contended that the Parliament's power of amending the Constitution under Article 368 included the power to amend the Fundamental Rights guaranteed in Part III as well?
- a)Shankari Prasad Case (1951)
- b)Sajjan Singh case (1965)
- c)Golaknath case (1967)
- d)Kesavananda Bharati case (1973)
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
| FREE This question is part of | Download PDF Attempt this Test |
Most Upvoted Answer
Which case contended that the Parliaments power of amending the Consti...
Shankari Prasad Case (1951)
Background:
The Constitution of India was adopted on 26th January 1950. The Parliament was empowered to amend the Constitution under Article 368. The first amendment was made in 1951, which abolished the right to property as a fundamental right. This amendment was challenged in the Shankari Prasad case.
Contention:
The petitioner contended that Parliament's power of amending the Constitution under Article 368 did not include the power to amend the Fundamental Rights guaranteed in Part III.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court in its judgment held that the power of amendment conferred on Parliament under Article 368 was plenary, and it included the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights. The court observed that the Fundamental Rights were not sacrosanct and could be amended as per the needs of the time and the aspirations of the people.
Significance:
The Shankari Prasad case established the supremacy of Parliament in amending the Constitution. It also paved the way for subsequent amendments to the Constitution, including the 42nd amendment, which added the words "socialist" and "secular" to the preamble of the Constitution and curtailed the power of the judiciary.
Conclusion:
The Shankari Prasad case was a landmark judgment that settled the controversy regarding the extent of Parliament's power to amend the Constitution. The court upheld the supremacy of Parliament while also recognizing the need to balance the interests of different sections of society.
Background:
The Constitution of India was adopted on 26th January 1950. The Parliament was empowered to amend the Constitution under Article 368. The first amendment was made in 1951, which abolished the right to property as a fundamental right. This amendment was challenged in the Shankari Prasad case.
Contention:
The petitioner contended that Parliament's power of amending the Constitution under Article 368 did not include the power to amend the Fundamental Rights guaranteed in Part III.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court in its judgment held that the power of amendment conferred on Parliament under Article 368 was plenary, and it included the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights. The court observed that the Fundamental Rights were not sacrosanct and could be amended as per the needs of the time and the aspirations of the people.
Significance:
The Shankari Prasad case established the supremacy of Parliament in amending the Constitution. It also paved the way for subsequent amendments to the Constitution, including the 42nd amendment, which added the words "socialist" and "secular" to the preamble of the Constitution and curtailed the power of the judiciary.
Conclusion:
The Shankari Prasad case was a landmark judgment that settled the controversy regarding the extent of Parliament's power to amend the Constitution. The court upheld the supremacy of Parliament while also recognizing the need to balance the interests of different sections of society.
Free Test
FREE
| Start Free Test |
Community Answer
Which case contended that the Parliaments power of amending the Consti...
In the Shankari Prasad Case (1951), the Supreme Court contended that the Parliament's power of amending the Constitution under Article 368 included the power to amend the Fundamental Rights guaranteed in Part III as well.
Attention UPSC Students!
To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed UPSC study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in UPSC.
|
Explore Courses for UPSC exam
|
|
Similar UPSC Doubts
Top Courses for UPSCView all
Which case contended that the Parliaments power of amending the Constitution under Article 368 included the power to amend the Fundamental Rights guaranteed in Part III as well?a)Shankari Prasad Case (1951)b)Sajjan Singh case (1965)c)Golaknath case (1967)d)Kesavananda Bharati case (1973)Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Which case contended that the Parliaments power of amending the Constitution under Article 368 included the power to amend the Fundamental Rights guaranteed in Part III as well?a)Shankari Prasad Case (1951)b)Sajjan Singh case (1965)c)Golaknath case (1967)d)Kesavananda Bharati case (1973)Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for UPSC 2024 is part of UPSC preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the UPSC exam syllabus. Information about Which case contended that the Parliaments power of amending the Constitution under Article 368 included the power to amend the Fundamental Rights guaranteed in Part III as well?a)Shankari Prasad Case (1951)b)Sajjan Singh case (1965)c)Golaknath case (1967)d)Kesavananda Bharati case (1973)Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for UPSC 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Which case contended that the Parliaments power of amending the Constitution under Article 368 included the power to amend the Fundamental Rights guaranteed in Part III as well?a)Shankari Prasad Case (1951)b)Sajjan Singh case (1965)c)Golaknath case (1967)d)Kesavananda Bharati case (1973)Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.
Which case contended that the Parliaments power of amending the Constitution under Article 368 included the power to amend the Fundamental Rights guaranteed in Part III as well?a)Shankari Prasad Case (1951)b)Sajjan Singh case (1965)c)Golaknath case (1967)d)Kesavananda Bharati case (1973)Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for UPSC 2024 is part of UPSC preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the UPSC exam syllabus. Information about Which case contended that the Parliaments power of amending the Constitution under Article 368 included the power to amend the Fundamental Rights guaranteed in Part III as well?a)Shankari Prasad Case (1951)b)Sajjan Singh case (1965)c)Golaknath case (1967)d)Kesavananda Bharati case (1973)Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for UPSC 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Which case contended that the Parliaments power of amending the Constitution under Article 368 included the power to amend the Fundamental Rights guaranteed in Part III as well?a)Shankari Prasad Case (1951)b)Sajjan Singh case (1965)c)Golaknath case (1967)d)Kesavananda Bharati case (1973)Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Which case contended that the Parliaments power of amending the Constitution under Article 368 included the power to amend the Fundamental Rights guaranteed in Part III as well?a)Shankari Prasad Case (1951)b)Sajjan Singh case (1965)c)Golaknath case (1967)d)Kesavananda Bharati case (1973)Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for UPSC.
Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for UPSC Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of Which case contended that the Parliaments power of amending the Constitution under Article 368 included the power to amend the Fundamental Rights guaranteed in Part III as well?a)Shankari Prasad Case (1951)b)Sajjan Singh case (1965)c)Golaknath case (1967)d)Kesavananda Bharati case (1973)Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of
Which case contended that the Parliaments power of amending the Constitution under Article 368 included the power to amend the Fundamental Rights guaranteed in Part III as well?a)Shankari Prasad Case (1951)b)Sajjan Singh case (1965)c)Golaknath case (1967)d)Kesavananda Bharati case (1973)Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Which case contended that the Parliaments power of amending the Constitution under Article 368 included the power to amend the Fundamental Rights guaranteed in Part III as well?a)Shankari Prasad Case (1951)b)Sajjan Singh case (1965)c)Golaknath case (1967)d)Kesavananda Bharati case (1973)Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Which case contended that the Parliaments power of amending the Constitution under Article 368 included the power to amend the Fundamental Rights guaranteed in Part III as well?a)Shankari Prasad Case (1951)b)Sajjan Singh case (1965)c)Golaknath case (1967)d)Kesavananda Bharati case (1973)Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an
ample number of questions to practice Which case contended that the Parliaments power of amending the Constitution under Article 368 included the power to amend the Fundamental Rights guaranteed in Part III as well?a)Shankari Prasad Case (1951)b)Sajjan Singh case (1965)c)Golaknath case (1967)d)Kesavananda Bharati case (1973)Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice UPSC tests.
|
|
Explore Courses for UPSC exam
|
|
Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
|
© EduRev
|
Education Revolution
|
Follow Us
|
Signup to see your scores
go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup