Explanation:

The above said law can be reviewed by subsequent constitutional amendment.

Article 13 expressly sets the principle of the supremacy of fundamental rights over any other law in the case of inconsistency between the two. 

• In the early years of Independence, the Supreme Court conceded absolute power to Parliament in amending the Constitution, as was seen in the verdicts in Shankari Prasad case (1951) and Sajjan Singh case (1965).
• In both the cases the court had ruled that the term “law” in Article 13 must be taken to mean rules or regulations made in exercise of ordinary legislative power and not amendments to the Constitution made in exercise of constituent power under Article 368.

This means Parliament had the power to amend any part of the constitution including Fundamental rights.

• Article 13(2) reads, "The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the right conferred by this Part (Part-III) and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of contravention, be void."

However, in the Golaknath case (1967), the Supreme Court held that Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights, and this power would be only with a Constituent Assembly.

• The Court held that an amendment under Article 368 is "law" within the meaning of Article 13 of the Constitution and therefore, if an amendment "takes away or abridges" a Fundamental Right conferred by Part III, it is void.

Moreover, The Doctrine of Eclipse states that any law which is inconsistent with fundamental rights is not invalid. It is not totally dead but overshadowed by the fundamental right. The inconsistency (conflict) can be removed by constitutional amendment. The amendment to the relevant fundamental right will remove the eclipse and the entire law becomes valid.

Hence option 2nd is correct.