Which of the following Amendments of the Constitution of India declared that the Parliament has the power to abridge or take away any of the Fundamental Rights under Article 368 and such an Act, will NOT be a law under the meaning of Article 13?

The correct answer is the Twenty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution of India.

To understand why, we need to trace the historical and legal background that led to this amendment.

Background — The Conflict Between Fundamental Rights and Parliament's Power to Amend:

Article 13 of the Indian Constitution states that any law that abridges or takes away Fundamental Rights shall be void. Meanwhile, Article 368 deals with the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution. A critical legal question arose: Can Parliament, while exercising its constituent power under Article 368, amend Fundamental Rights? Or would such an amendment be struck down under Article 13?

The Golak Nath Case (1967):

In I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967), the Supreme Court of India, by a majority of 6:5, held that:

→ Parliament had no power to amend Part III of the Constitution (Fundamental Rights).
→ A Constitutional Amendment under Article 368 is also a "law" within the meaning of Article 13(2), and therefore, if it abridges or takes away any Fundamental Right, it would be void.

This created a major constitutional crisis — Parliament's power to amend the Constitution was severely curtailed by the judiciary, and several land reform and socio-economic legislations were under threat.

The Twenty-fourth Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971 �� The Direct Response:

To overcome the judgment in the Golak Nath case, Parliament enacted the Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1971. This amendment made two crucial changes:

1. Amendment to Article 13:
A new clause, Article 13(4), was added, which explicitly states that nothing in Article 13 shall apply to any amendment made under Article 368. This effectively removed Constitutional Amendments from the scope of Article 13's judicial review on the ground of violating Fundamental Rights.

2. Amendment to Article 368:
The amendment inserted a new provision making it explicitly clear that Parliament has the power to amend any provision of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, by following the prescribed procedure. It also made it obligatory for the President to give his assent to a Constitutional Amendment Bill (removing his discretion to withhold assent).

Key Declaration Made by the Twenty-fourth Amendment:

In essence, the Twenty-fourth Amendment declared that:

✔ Parliament possesses the sovereign constituent power to abridge or take away any Fundamental Rights under Article 368.
✔ Any such Constitutional Amendment will NOT be considered a "law" under the meaning of Article 13, and therefore cannot be challenged as unconstitutional on the ground of violating Fundamental Rights.

Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:

→ The Twenty-third Amendment (1969) related to reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies — it had no relevance to Article 368 or Article 13.
→ The Twentieth Amendment (1966) validated the appointments of certain District Judges — unrelated to Fundamental Rights or amending power.
→ The Twenty-eighth Amendment (1972) abolished the privileges of the Indian Civil Services (ICS) officers — again, unrelated to the power of Parliament under Article 368.

Subsequent Development (for context):

The validity of the Twenty-fourth Amendment was upheld by the Supreme Court in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case, where the Court held that while Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution including Fundamental Rights, it cannot alter the Basic Structure of the Constitution.

Summary:

The Twenty-fourth Constitutional Amendment, 1971 is the correct answer because it was the specific amendment that:
(i) Declared Parliament's explicit power to amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368, and
(ii) Inserted Article 13(4) to ensure that such amendments would NOT be treated as "law" under Article 13, thereby shielding them from being declared void.