Whether the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, which was recently passed by the present provisional Parliament and purports to insert, inter alia, articles 31A And 3lB in the Constitution of India is ultra vires and unconstitutional?
The terms of article 368 are perfectly general and empower Parliament to amend the Constitution without any exception whatever.
Whether making a change in a basic feature of the Constitution can be regarded merely as an amendment or would it be, in effect, rewriting a part of the Constitution; and if the latter, would it be within the purview of Article 368?
Justice Khanna has explained that Fundamental Rights are the key features which have been granted to all the citizen of the Country, before the proposition of the basic structure, any part of the Constitution inclusive of Fundamental Rights were amenable by the Parliament through Article 368 of the Constitution of India. The Constitution of India has basic features, this concept was first theorised in the year 1964 by Justice J.R. Mudholkar in this case. He mentioned that it is matter for consideration that making a change in a basic feature of the Constitution of India can be regarded merely as an amendment or would it be, in effect, rewriting a part of the Constitution; and if the latter, would it be within the purview of Article 368.
Whether the 24th Constitutional (Amendment), Act 1971 is Constitutionally valid or not?
Whether the 25th Constitutional (Amendment), Act 1972 is Constitutionally valid or not?
The extent to which the Parliament can exercise its power to amend the Constitution?
The Parliament has an unlimited power to amend the Constitution subject to the sole condition that such amendments must not change the basic structure of the Constitution.