Facts of the Case: By putting certain actions approved by State Legislatures in the Ninth Schedule under Article 31B of the Seventeenth Amendment Act, which may be challenged under Articles 14, 19, and 31 of the Indian Constitution, these acts are protected from being challenged.
As the (Seventeenth Constitutional Amendment) Act of 1964 altered the powers that are outlined in Article 226 of the Indian Constitution and did not follow the specific procedure outlined in Article 368 of the Indian Constitution, it was challenged before the Supreme Court of India. Regarding whether or not the basic rights can be modified, the Sankari Prasad Case was once more brought up. The right to judicial review—one of the fundamental elements of the constitution—was removed as a result of the Ninth Schedule’s unique attribute of not being subject to judicial review. The Ninth Schedule contains many legislation dealing with property. The phrase “Pith and Substance” was used in this situation. Whether a major change to the Constitution would be regarded as an amendment or a complete rewrite, and if the latter, whether it would be covered by Article 368’s protections.
Judgment: The Indian Constitution’s Article 368 grants the Parliament the authority to alter any of the Constitution’s articles, according to the Supreme Court. It was asserted once more that the scope of Article 368 is restricted to constitutional law, whereas Article 13 only applies to regular legislation and not to constitutional amendments. According to the majority ruling, Parliament has the authority to change people’s basic rights.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
