Which one of the following judgments declared that the Parliament has NO power to amend any of the provisions of Part III of the Constitution of India ?

In the landmark case of Golak Nath vs. State of Punjab (1967), the Supreme Court reversed its previous stance regarding the Parliament's power to amend the Constitution [2]. By a 6:5 majority, the Court ruled that Fundamental Rights in Part III are 'transcendental and immutable', meaning Parliament cannot abridge or take away these rights [4]. The Court held that a constitutional amendment under Article 368 is a 'law' within the meaning of Article 13(2), and thus any amendment violating Fundamental Rights would be void [2]. This judgment effectively declared that Parliament had no power to amend Part III to curtail these rights [2]. This position was later overruled in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), which restored the power to amend any part of the Constitution provided the 'basic structure' remains intact [3].

Sources

1. [1] Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity. 7th ed., McGraw Hill. > Chapter 12: Basic Structure of the Constitution > EMERGENCE OF THE BASIC STRUCTURE > p. 127
2. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I._C._Golaknath_and_Others_v._State_of_Punjab_and_Anothers
3. [4] Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 10: Procedure for Amendment > President bound to give assent. > p. 194
4. [3] Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 8: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES > CHAP. 8 Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Duties 97 > p. 97