Shankari prasad case 1951

 Shankari Prasad Case (1951) – A Detailed Analysis

The Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India (1951) case was the first major constitutional case in independent India concerning the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution, particularly regarding Fundamental Rights.

---

Background of the Case

The Indian Constitution came into force on 26th January 1950, granting citizens Fundamental Rights under Part III of the Constitution.

To implement land reforms and abolish the Zamindari system, the government introduced the First Amendment Act, 1951, which modified property rights.

The amendment added Articles 31A and 31B to protect land reform laws from being challenged under Fundamental Rights in courts.

Shankari Prasad, a landowner, challenged the validity of the amendment, arguing that Parliament had no power to amend Fundamental Rights, as it would violate the essence of the Constitution.

---

Legal Issues Involved

The case raised two important legal questions:

1. Does Parliament have unlimited power to amend the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights?

2. Can an amendment be considered a "law" under Article 13(2)?

Key Constitutional Provisions Discussed

1. Article 368 – Defines Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.

2. Article 13(2) – Prohibits the State from making any law that violates Fundamental Rights.

---

Arguments by the Petitioner (Shankari Prasad)

Fundamental Rights are sacrosanct and cannot be amended – The petitioner argued that Fundamental Rights form the core of the Constitution and cannot be changed by Parliament.

Article 13(2) applies to Constitutional Amendments – Since Article 13(2) states that the government cannot make laws that violate Fundamental Rights, constitutional amendments should also be subject to this restriction.

Parliament cannot destroy the essence of the Constitution – If Parliament has the power to amend Fundamental Rights, it could take away citizens’ rights completely, which would go against democratic principles.

---

Arguments by the Union of India (Government)

Parliament has absolute power to amend the Constitution – The government argued that under Article 368, Parliament has unlimited power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.

Article 13(2) does not apply to Constitutional Amendments – The government maintained that amendments made under Article 368 are not “laws” in the sense of Article 13(2) and are therefore not restricted by it.

The First Amendment is necessary for land reforms – The abolition of the Zamindari system and land redistribution were important for social justice and economic equality.

---

Supreme Court’s Judgment (1951)

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Government, holding that Parliament has the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.

The Court interpreted Article 368 to mean that constitutional amendments are not "laws" under Article 13(2), and thus, they cannot be challenged on the ground of violating Fundamental Rights.

It upheld the First Amendment Act, 1951, allowing land reform laws to remain valid.

Key Observations by the Supreme Court

1. Article 368 provides Parliament with full authority to amend the Constitution without any restrictions.

2. The term "law" in Article 13(2) refers only to ordinary legislation, not constitutional amendments.

3. Fundamental Rights are not absolute and can be modified if necessary for the greater good.

---

Impact of the Judgment

1. Established Parliamentary Supremacy over Constitutional Amendments

It gave Parliament the power to amend Fundamental Rights without judicial interference.

2. Allowed Land Reforms and Abolition of Zamindari System

Strengthened the government’s ability to pass laws for social and economic justice.

3. Led to Future Constitutional Conflicts

The ruling faced criticism, and later cases like Golaknath (1967) and Kesavananda Bharati (1973) challenged this interpretation.

---

Criticism of the Judgment

It weakened Fundamental Rights – By allowing Parliament to amend them freely, it removed constitutional protection from these rights.

It ignored the checks and balances of the Constitution – The judgment concentrated too much power in the hands of the Legislature, weakening the Judiciary’s role in reviewing amendments.

---

Reversal in Golaknath Case (1967)

In Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967), the Supreme Court overruled the Shankari Prasad judgment and held that Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights.

However, the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, restoring Parliament’s amendment power but with limitations.

---

Conclusion

The Shankari Prasad Case (1951) was a landmark judgment that upheld Parliament’s power to amend Fundamental Rights and paved the way for land reforms. However, it also raised concerns about unrestricted parliamentary power, leading to later judicial interventions. While it was overruled in 1967, the case remains significant in India’s constitutional history for shaping the debate on constitutional amendments and Fundamental Rights.