In which of the following landmark cases did the Supreme Court of India rule that the Fundamental Rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution are transcendental and cannot be abridged or taken away by Parliament even through a constitutional amendment under Article 368?

Explanation

In the landmark I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab case, the Supreme Court ruled that Fundamental Rights in Part III of the Constitution possess a transcendental position, making them immune to parliamentary amendments under Article 368. Parliament does not have the authority to take away these essential rights through amendments.