In which of the following cases did the Supreme Court direct that, 'the Parliament cannot take away or abridge any of the fundamental rights for the Implementation of Directive Principles'?

The correct answer is Golak Nath Case, 1967.

Key Points

• The Golak Nath Case (1967) was a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court of India.
• In this case, the Supreme Court held that the Parliament could not amend the Fundamental Rights enshrined in the Constitution.
• The judgment stated that Fundamental Rights are transcendental and immutable, thus, they cannot be abridged or taken away by any amendment of the Constitution.
• The decision in Golak Nath Case was later overruled by the Kesavananda Bharati Case in 1973, which introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine.

Additional Information

• Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973)
  • This case is known for the Basic Structure Doctrine which asserts that certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be altered by any amendment.
  • The judgment provided stability to the Constitution by ensuring its core values remain intact.
• Minerva Mills Case (1980)
  • This case reinforced the Basic Structure Doctrine and further strengthened judicial review.
  • The Supreme Court ruled that the power of judicial review is an essential feature of the Constitution.
• Indira Sawhney Case (1992)
  • This case is also known as the Mandal Commission Case, which addressed the issue of reservations in government jobs.
  • The Supreme Court upheld the 27% reservation for OBCs but excluded the creamy layer.
• Directive Principles of State Policy
  • These are guidelines for the framing of laws by the government, set out in Part IV of the Constitution.
  • They are non-justiciable in nature, meaning they are not legally enforceable by the courts for their violation.