72 Act, 1951, which had inserted article 31B. In Shankari Prashad V. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 458, the court held that to make a law which contravenes the constitution constitutionally valid is a matter of constitutional amendment and as such falls within the exclusive power of Parliament. The Shankari Prashad case was revisited in Sajjan Singh V. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1965 SC 845. The Constitution Seventeenth Amendment Act, 1964 had placed a still larger number of State enactments in the Ninth Schedule to obviate a challenge against them as being in violation of fundamental rights. This amendment to the constitution was upheld by a Bench of five Judges. It was ultimately in Golak Nath V. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1643, where a Bench of eleven members considered fundamental could be rights abrogated whether guaranteed or any in amended part the by of the constitution constitutional amendment. The court by majority viewed that none of the fundamental rights were amenable to the amending power of article 368 because an amendment to the