Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951): Landmark Case on Constitutional Amendment and Fundamental Rights

 

SHANKARI PRASAD  V.   UNION OF INDIA

 

Shankari prasad v. Union of India

AIR (1951) SC 458

 

Author- Ishika Narayan, B.A.LLB(Hons),Arya Kanya degree College, University of Allahabad, Prayagraj

Landmark case on parliament power to amend constitution and fundamental right under article 368 of the constitution

ABSTRACT

 

Shankari prasad v. Union of India is a landmark case on the power of the parliament of constitution and fundamental Right amendment. It is one of the most important case in India as this case is the first amendment in the Indian constitution. It also provides remarkable judgement that shaped the interpretation of constitutional amendments in India. Shankari prasad singh deo was a landowner of west bengal. who challenged the amendment act of 1951 which curtailed the fundamental rights (right to property). The fundamental right (right to property)was curtailed by the government to promote socio- economic development in the nation. In this case the supreme court rule in parliament favour holding that parliament has the ultimate power to amend any part of the constitution including fundamental right. The court also emphasized that constitutional amendments is not law under article 13(2) and therefore not restricted by it.

 

PRIMARY DETAILS OF THE CASE

 

 

Full Case Name	Shankari Prasad v. Union of India
Citation	AIR 1951 SC 458
Jurisdiction involved	Supreme Court
Judgement given by	Chief justice Hiralal J.Kania Justice M.Patanjali sastri Justice B.K Mukherjea Justice Sudhi Ranjan Das Justice N.Chandrasekhara Aiyar
Case decide on	October 5, 1951(supreme Court judgement)
Petitioner	Shankari Prasad Singh Deo
Respondent	Union of India
Legal provisions	Article 19(1)(f), Article 31, Article 368, Article 13(2)
Case summary prepared by	Ishika Narayan

 

BRIEF FACT OF THE CASE

 

Shankari Prasad v. Union of India was brought before the court by Mr. Shankari Prasad Singh deo. Who was a landowner in west bengal challenged the amendment act of 1951 by claiming that it violated their fundamental right (Right to property) by taking their land without their will. And was therefore unconstitutional. The amendment act 1951 was the first amendment after India adopted its constitution in 1950. This amendment allowed the state to make law for land reforms. which was needed for the socio- economic development of the state. The constitution amendment act 1951 introduced article 31(A) and 31(B) and added the ninth schedule  to the constitution; this provision aimed to protect land reforms law from judicial scrutiny and potential invalidation on the ground of fundamental right. Shankari Prasad challenged this amendment on the ground that. This amendment abolished the landlordism which had been protected under fundamental right (Right to property) and article 13(2) prohibited the state from making any law that abridged the fundamental rights. and also  under article 31 which states that no person shall be deprived of their property except by the authority of law and the state could take the private property only for public purpose and must provide compensation for that. The supreme court upheld the validity of the first amendment by ruling that parliament has the power to amend any part of the constitution including fundamental right and the term law in article 13 (2) refers to ordinary legislation and does not encompass constitutional amendments therefore the constitutional amendment made under article 368 are not subject to the limitations imposed by article 13(2) these interpretation established a distinction between ordinary legislative power and the constitutional power of parliament to amend the constitution.

 

ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE CASE

 

These were the primary issue of the case:-

 

●       Power of Amendment

Whether the parliament has the power to amend any part of the constitution including fundamental right as the fundamental rights (right to property) has been amended.

 

●       Scope of Article 13(2)

Whether a constitution amendment is considered as a “law” under article 13(2) which prohibits the state from making law that takes away fundamental rights.

 

●       Supremacy of the parliament v. Constitution

whether parliament is above constitution as parliament has the right to amend the constitution and also India is a democratic nation which states that constitution is the supreme authority to run the nation.

 

●       Validity of the constitutional amendment act 1951

whether the provisions of the first amendment which affect fundamental rights are valid and constitutional.

 

ARGUMENT OF THE PARTIES

 

Petitioner :- (Mr. Shankari prasad singh deo)

 

The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of the first amendment to the Indian constitution enacted in 1951. They contended that the amendment violated certain fundamental rights, particularly the right to property, by allowing the state to implement land reforms law that would otherwise be struck down by the court. Their core argument was based on interpretation of article 13(2) of the constitution which explicitly prohibits the state from making any law that take away the rights which are conferred by part lll of Indian constitution the petitioner argued that a constitutional amendments regardless of the procedure followed is essentially a law within the meaning of article 13. Therefore if such amendment curtailed fundamental rights it would be regarded as void to the extent of constitutional the petitioner also claimed that the fundamental rights are considered as the backbone of the constitution and amending the fundamental rights means amending the basic feature of the constitution.

 

 

Respondent:-  (Union of india)

 

The Respondents stressed that the amendment was introduced with the intention of achieving social and economic justice especially through land reforms and equitable distribution of resources. They also argued that the constitutional amendment is not a “law” within the meaning of article 13(2) which applies only to ordinary law made under legislative power not to amendment made by parliament units constitutional capacity. The Respondents also insisted that article 368 grant parliament the authority to amend any part of the constitution including the provisions of part lll. They also state that according to the government the amendment did not abolish fundamental rights but merely introduce reasonable restrictions to balance individual liberty with public interest and nation development.

 

LEGAL ASPECTS INVOLVES

 

The following legal aspects considered are mentioned below:-

 

Power of amendment (article 368)

Interpretation of article 368 which says that parliament has full power to amend any part of the constitution including fundamental right by following the prescribed procedure.

 

Meaning of law under article 13(2)

Article 13(2) held to apply only to ordinary law not to constitutional amendments which means that amendment can not be challenged for violating fundamental right under this article.

 

Judicial review limited

The supreme court limited the scope of judicial review by excluding constitutional Amendments from the definition of law under article. 13 which says that amendments were not subject to judicial review for violating rights.

 

JUDGEMENT

In Shankari prasad v. The Union of India (1951) case the supreme court delivered landmark judgement upholding the validity of the first constitutional amendment act 1952. The court ruled that parliament has the power under article (368)to amend any part of the constitution including the provision related to fundamental rights by following the prescribed procedure. It further held that a constitutional amendment is not considered as a “law” within the meaning of article 13(2). Which prohibits the states from making laws that take away fundamental rights. Since constitutional amendments are made through constitution power Not ordinary legislative power they are not subject to restrictions imposed by article 13. As a result the supreme court gave its judgement  in the favour of the parliament and concluded that the amendment was constitutionally valid.

 

IMPACT AND SIGNIFICANCE

Shankari Prasad v. The Union of India (1951) case holds great significance in the development of Indian constitutional law.  It was the first time the supreme court interpreted Article 368. And  upheld the view that parliament has full power to amend any part of the constitution including fundamental rights by following the prescribed procedure. The court ruled that a constitutional amendment is made using constituent power, not ordinary legislative power. And therefore does not fall under the definition of “law” in article 13(2). It means that amendments affecting fundamental rights could not be challenged under this article. It also introduced the important legal concept of distinguishing between constitution and legislative power. The case Shankari Prasad v. The Union of India has foundational judgements that shaped the clear understanding of constitutional amendment in India.

 

CONCLUSION

The case Shankari Prasad v. The Union of India firmly established that parliament has the supreme authority to amend any part of the constitution including the fundamental rights through the procedure laid down in Article 368. The supreme court held that a constitutional amendment is not “law” within the meaning of article 13(2) and therefore, it cannot be invalidated for violating fundamental rights.  As a result, the first constitution amendment which curtailed the fundamental right ( right to property) and inserted law in the ninth schedule. To protect land reforms from judicial review was declared valid by the supreme court. This judgement strengthened parliament’s supremacy in the constitutional amendment and set a precedent for future cases. It  marked a significant moment in India's constitutional history by clarifying the scope and limits of the amending power of the parliament in the constitution of India.

Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951): Landmark Case on Constitutional Amendment and Fundamental Rights

• Shankari Prasad v. Union of India case summary
• 1951 constitutional amendment case
• First Amendment of Indian Constitution
• Right to Property case India
• Article 368 power of amendment
• Article 13(2) constitutional law
• Fundamental rights and constitutional amendment
• Landmark Supreme Court cases India
• Parliament vs Constitution
• Indian constitutional law case studies