In which of the following cases did the Supreme Court rule that **Parliament cannot take away or abridge any of the Fundamental Rights for the purpose of implementing Directive Principles of State Policy**?

Question

Accepted Answer

**Solution:**

1. In the **Golak Nath Case (1967)**, the Supreme Court held that Parliament does not have the authority to amend the Constitution in a way that takes away or diminishes any of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Part III, even if such amendments are intended to implement the Directive Principles of State Policy under Part IV.

2. The Court ruled that Fundamental Rights are inviolable and cannot be abridged by constitutional amendments passed by Parliament.

3. This judgment raised significant questions about the extent of Parliament's power to amend the Constitution, especially concerning Fundamental Rights.

4. Later, the **Keshvanand Bharti Case (1973)** overruled this decision to some extent by introducing the Basic Structure Doctrine, which restricts Parliament's power to amend the Constitution but allows some amendments.

5. The **Minerva Mills Case (1980)** further emphasized the need to maintain a balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.

**Answer:** Golak Nath Case, 1967

Answer

Answer

Answer