Sign up now
to enroll in courses, follow best educators, interact with the community and track your progress.
Download
Shankari Prasad Case to Minerva Mills Case Doubt Destroyer (in Hindi)
4,850 plays

More
Learn and understand Historical cases like never before.

Rahul Agrawal is teaching live on Unacademy Plus

Rahul Agrawal
The Ultimate Doubt Destroyer on Unacademy. One of the Top Educator on the Unacademy platform. Famous for Doubt destroyer series.

U
Unacademy user
Sir right to property 44th amendment 1978 me delete Kia gya tha FR se and made legal right art 300-A part xii Or aap Bata rhe 1st amendment me hi hata Diya gya tha
Ajay Kumar
2 years ago
Yes I also have same doubt ! Please Clear this Sir
Kamlesh Kumar
2 years ago
thank u sir
Naval Karoly
2 years ago
yes right.. it was diregarded as fr in 1977 not 1951..
Subhash singh
a year ago
yes right bro in 1951 parliament give some limitation to our fr
Subhash singh
a year ago
yes right bro in 1951 parliament give some limitation to our fr
Subhash singh
a year ago
yes right bro in 1951 parliament give some limitation to our fr
Subhash singh
a year ago
yes right bro in 1951 parliament give some limitation to our fr
sir ne kaha hata skte hai aisa parliament ne kaha but hataya use 1978 me..
Chuyenge Ghus Ghus Kar Chuyenge Hahahaha????????????????....!!!???? Thnkyou Broo
Jai hind bro.....u and ur topic and also ur style of teaching.....superb....
MORARJI DESAI ji was the first non congress Prime Minister under Janata Party...
superb and that chuyenge part too good... ;-)
  1. LEARNING POWERPLAY-01 HISTORICAL CASES By Rakul Arawal R. AGRAWAL


  2. SHANKARI PRASAD CASE (1951) Whether fundamental rights can be amended by parliament under article 368. SC ruled that power of parliament to amend the constitution, includes its power to amend FR's R. AGRAWAL


  3. SHANKARI PRASAD CASE (1951) Word law in article 13 includes only ordinary law & not constitutional amendments. Means parliament can take away FR's by CA's & that will not be void under article 13. R. AGRAWAL


  4. GOLAK NATH CASE (1967) SC reversed its stand. Said CA is also a law under article 13. FR's are untouchable & parliament can't take away them. R. AGRAWAL


  5. 24TH AMENDMENT 1971 Parliament reacted to golak nath & amended article 13 & 368. Declared that parliament can take away FR's & CA is not a law under 13. R. AGRAWAL


  6. KESHAVA NAND BHARTI CASE (1973) SC overruled golaknath's judgment. Upheld validity of 24th amendment. Stated that parliament can take away FR's. But said that power of parliament to amend doesn't enable it to alter. ucture of the cosion R. AGRAWAL "Basic structure of the constitution"


  7. This keshava nanda bharti case is considered as greatest case of our indian history. It was decided on 7:6 majority. R. AGRAWAL


  8. After keshavananda case, parliament again reacted & enacted 42nd amendment act (1976) Declared that parliament can amend anything including basic structure (limited power). R. AGRAWAL


  9. MINNERVA MILLS CASE (1980) Validity of 42nd amendment was challenged that it violates basic structure SC ruled that limited amending power is also a basic structure of constitution. Constitution is supreme not the parliame R. AGRAWAL


  10. WAMAN RAO CASE Basic doctrine structure only applicable to amendments done after 24 april 1973 (judgment of keshava nand bharti case). Not retrospective. R. AGRAWAL