Skip to content
- Champakam Dorairajan v the State of Madras (1951): In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that in case of any conflict between the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles, the former would prevail.
- It declared that the Directive Principles must conform to and run as subsidiary to the Fundamental Rights.
- It also held that the Fundamental Rights could be amended by the Parliament by enacting constitutional amendment acts.
- Golaknath v the State of Punjab (1967): In this case, the Supreme Court declared that Fundamental Rights could not be amended by the Parliament even for implementation of Directive Principles.
- It was contradictory to its own judgement in the ‘Shankari Parsad case’.
- Kesavananda Bharati v the State of Kerala (1973): In this case, the Supreme Court overruled its Golak Nath (1967) verdict and declared that Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution but it cannot alter its “Basic Structure”.
- Thus, the Right to Property (Article 31) was eliminated from the list of Fundamental Rights.
- Minerva Mills v the Union of India (1980): In this case, the Supreme Court reiterated that Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution but it cannot change the “Basic Structure” of the Constitution.
