As suggested,one must read article 141 and 142 of Constitution of India to explore the matter fully.
The question,further raised,in reply to 'Judgemental Law' may be answered as-
The apex court has power to declare a law unconstitutional and hence void if it is in contravention with the any of the rights mentioned in part III of the constitution.
The process of law making goes like-
1.The president assent to introduce the bill.
2.Presented to Lower house.If passed by majority,presented to Upper house.
3.Passed by upper house.
4.President assent required.
5.If president assent given,it becomes an act or say law.
6.If Constitutional validity is challenged by some mechanism say PIL,the act has to pass that validity test.Then only the act becomes operational in accordance with provision of the constitution. You may read the case of 'K. T. Moopil Nair v. State of Kerla' where the provisions of the Travancore Coachin Land Tax Act 1955' was challenged in view of Art 14 and Art.19(1)(f)*.
*repealed by 42nd constitutional amendment.
Coming to Art. 141,the law declared by the Supreme Court to be binding on all courts.But the supreme court is not bound by its own decisions and may overrule its previous decisions.It is vital to note the points observed by the court in the case of 'Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1965 SC 845'.
" It is true that the Constitution does not place any restriction on our powers to review our earlier decisions or even to depart from them and there can be no doubt that in matters relating to the decision of constitutional points which have a significant impact on the fundamental rights of citizens, we would be prepared to review our earlier decisions in the interest of public good. The doctrine of stare decisis may not strictly apply in this context and no one can dispute the position that the said doctrine should not be permitted to perpetuate erroneous decisions pronounced by this Court to the detriment of general welfare. Even so, the normal principle that judgments pronounced by this Court would be final, cannot be ignored and unless considerations of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so, we should be slow to doubt ,,the correctness of previous decisions or to depart from them."
Further the law declared has as wider scope than a law made.Judicial activism,as earlier pointed out by members is necessary for the functioning of healthy democracy and here the word 'declared' suggests the true power of judicial activism.
Lastly,coming to the doubt of 6 months,there is no such provision. Legislature can amend any of provisions of any of law including fundamental rights and sometimes gives a blunt reasoning to proved themselves right if any law made by them is criticized by the Supreme court . it has already happened a few times back in history of Indian Constituion which later become a milestone for judicial activism like PIL(Introuduced by Mr. Justice P.N. Bhagwati). This is the result of Judicial activism where the Apex court devised the mechanism of basic structure to avoid the viciousness of legislatures.The case of GolakhNath as suggested is an important one where one can find the starting of war between legislature and judiciary which was ended by much infamous case of Keshvanand Bharti.One must read about the 'doctrine of basic structure' to know the matter in depth.
A new war has been started now between Judiciary and Legislatures. You can't miss RTI amendemnt news on Political parties after CIC decision went against them or can you afford to !!!
Enough Material for time being.