In Golak Nath v State of Punjab, (1967) 2 SCR 762, the Supreme Court decided that a constitutional amendment is a ‘law within the meaning of Article 13(2) and therefore, if it violates any of the fundamental rights, it may be declared void.
In the above case, the majority was of the opinion that the cases of Sajjan Singh and Shankari Prasad were erroneous decisions as they gave precedence to the ameriding power of Parliament over fundamental rights Fundamental rights cannot be abridged or taken away by way of amendments to Article 368 Article 368 was subject to judicial review and the word ‘law’ under Article 13(2) includes an amendment, and any amendment violating the fundamental rights would be void. Although the definition of law in Article 13(3)(c) does not expressly mention ‘amendments’ in a wider sense, it is included in it. Hence, Parliament has no power to amend any provisions of Part III of the Constitution.