In the Golaknath case, the Supreme Court ruled that constitutional amendments are also considered as laws under Article 13 of the Indian Constitution. Article 13 states that any law that is inconsistent with or in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution shall be declared void.

Option 1: The Keshavananda Bharati case is not relevant to this question as it dealt with the doctrine of basic structure, which limits the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution.

Option 3: The Minerva Mills case involved the concept of "basic structure" and the validity of certain amendments, but it did not directly address the question of whether constitutional amendments are considered laws under Article 13.

Option 4: The Maneka Gandhi case dealt with the interpretation of fundamental rights and the right to travel abroad, but it did not specifically address the status of constitutional amendments as laws under Article 13.

Therefore, the correct answer is option 2: Golaknath case. It is important to note that this answer is based on the provided information, and if there are any other relevant cases that were not mentioned, the correct answer could be different.