[amp_mcq option1=”Sajjan Singh Vs. State of Rajsthan” option2=”Shankari Prasad Vs. Union of India” option3=”Kesvanand Bharti Vs. State of Keraf a” option4=”Goloknath Vs. State of Punjab ” correct=”option3″]<\/p>\n
The correct answer is (c).<\/p>\n
In the case of Kesvanand Bharti v. State of Kerala, the Supreme Court held that an amendment of the Constitution under Article 368 is a ‘law’ under Article 13. This means that an amendment to the Constitution is subject to the same limitations as any other law, and cannot violate fundamental rights.<\/p>\n
The other options are incorrect because they do not support the correct answer.<\/p>\n
In the case of Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court held that the power to amend the Constitution is a limited power, and cannot be used to destroy the basic structure of the Constitution.<\/p>\n
In the case of Shankari Prasad v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that the power to amend the Constitution is a plenary power, and cannot be limited by any other law.<\/p>\n
In the case of Goloknath v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court held that the power to amend the Constitution is a limited power, and cannot be used to violate fundamental rights.<\/p>\n
However, the Supreme Court later overruled its decision in Goloknath v. State of Punjab in the case of Kesvanand Bharti v. State of Kerala.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
[amp_mcq option1=”Sajjan Singh Vs. State of Rajsthan” option2=”Shankari Prasad Vs. Union of India” option3=”Kesvanand Bharti Vs. State of Keraf a” option4=”Goloknath Vs. State of Punjab ” correct=”option3″]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[24],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4029","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-indian-constitution","no-featured-image-padding"],"yoast_head":"\n