Why this matters now
The 24th Amendment is core to the Article 368 amending power story arc — from Sankari Prasad (1951) → Sajjan Singh (1965) → Golak Nath (1967) → 24th & 25th Amendments (1971) → Kesavananda Bharati (1973). It is the constitutional fulcrum of the Basic Structure doctrine.
Trigger: I.C. Golak Nath (1967)
In I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967), an 11-judge bench (6:5) held that Parliament has NO power to amend Fundamental Rights — Article 368 only prescribes the procedure, not the power. The court explicitly overruled Sankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh. This effectively froze the FR chapter from amendment.
Key changes
- Article 13(4) added — explicitly excluding constitutional amendments from the scope of “law” under Article 13.
- Article 368 retitled “Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and Procedure therefor” — making the AMENDING POWER explicit.
- Added Article 368(1) — explicit declaration that Parliament may “in exercise of its constituent power” amend any provision including Part III (Fundamental Rights).
- Added Article 368(3) — President is OBLIGED to give assent to a constitutional amendment Bill (no discretion).
Tested in Kesavananda Bharati (1973)
The 24th Amendment was upheld in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) by a 13-judge bench (7:6) — but only WITH the introduction of the Basic Structure doctrine: Parliament has power to amend any provision INCLUDING FRs but cannot destroy the basic structure of the Constitution (federalism, secularism, judicial review, democracy, etc.). The 24th Amendment’s text stood; its absolute reading did not.
UPSC angle
Know 24th Amendment 1971 — response to Golak Nath (1967, 11-judge 6:5 overruling Sankari Prasad & Sajjan Singh); added Article 13(4) excluding constitutional amendments from “law”; rewrote Article 368 to make amending power explicit (incl FRs); President obliged to assent; upheld in Kesavananda Bharati (1973, 13-judge 7:6) with Basic Structure doctrine.
Frequently asked questions
What was the Golak Nath case?
A 1967 Supreme Court decision (11 judges, 6:5) holding that Parliament had no power to amend Fundamental Rights.
What did the 24th Amendment do?
It restored Parliament’s power to amend any part of the Constitution including Fundamental Rights, by rewriting Article 368 and adding Article 13(4).
Was the 24th Amendment upheld?
Yes — in Kesavananda Bharati (1973), but with the Basic Structure doctrine limit: Parliament cannot destroy the basic structure of the Constitution.
Can the President refuse assent to an amendment?
No — Article 368(3) (added by the 24th Amendment) makes presidential assent obligatory.