In which of the following landmark cases did the Supreme Court of India rule that constitutional amendments are also 'law' under Article 13 of the Constitution and can be declared void if they violate fundamental rights?

Explanation

In the Golaknath case (1967), the Supreme Court ruled that Parliament could not curtail any of the Fundamental Rights and that an amendment to the Constitution passed under Article 368 is 'law' within the meaning of Article 13(2), and hence would be void if it violates fundamental rights. This ruling was later modified in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), which held that constitutional amendments under Article 368 do not fall under Article 13(2), but introduced the 'Basic Structure Doctrine'.