SRI SANKARI PRASAD SINGH DEO VS UNION OF INDIA AIR 1951 SC 458

BENCH: Chief Justice J. Hiralal Kania, Justice M. Patanjali Sastri, Justice B.K. Mukherjee, Justice Sudhi Ranjan Das, & Justice N. Chandrasekhara Aiyar

FACTS:

To abolish the zamindari system prevalent across India, state legislatures in Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, and Madhya Pradesh enacted the Zamindari Abolition Act, aiming to redistribute the extensive land holdings of wealthy zamindars to local residents. However, some zamindars, feeling aggrieved by the law, challenged its legality, arguing that it violated their Fundamental Right to Property under Part III of the Constitution.

The Patna High Court ruled the Bihar Act illegal, while the Allahabad and Nagpur High Courts upheld the law in Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, respectively. With appeals and petitions pending, the Union Parliament intervened by introducing a Bill to amend the Constitution. After several modifications, the Bill became the Constitution (First Amendment) Act of 1951, which validated the Zamindari Abolition Laws and placed restrictions on the Fundamental Right to Property. New Articles 31A and 31B were added to authorize the challenged measures. In response, the zamindars filed petitions under Article 32, challenging the Amendment Act as unconstitutional in the Shankari Prasad Case.

ISSUES:

The key issues in the case revolved around the constitutionality of the First Amendment Act passed by Parliament. The main questions were whether the Amendment Act was unconstitutional, whether Parliament had the authority to amend Fundamental Rights, and whether the term "law" in Article 13(2) of the Constitution includes laws enacted by the Constituent Assembly. These legal questions were central to the challenge filed by the zamindars against the constitutional validity of the Amendment.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the First Amendment Act of 1951. The Court ruled that Parliament did indeed have the power to amend the Fundamental Rights, as the amendment was made under Article 368 of the Constitution, which grants Parliament the authority to amend the Constitution.

The Court's reasoning was based on the interpretation of Article 368, which outlines the process for amending the Constitution. The Court held that the term "amendment" under Article 368 is not limited by the provisions of the Constitution, and therefore, it allows Parliament to alter any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.

The Court also interpreted Article 13(2), which prohibits laws that violate Fundamental Rights, and ruled that the word "law" in Article 13(2) does not include constitutional amendments. Therefore, the First Amendment, which was a constitutional amendment and not a regular law, was not subject to the limitations of Article 13(2). As a result, the Court concluded that Parliament had the authority to amend Fundamental Rights and validate the Zamindari Abolition Laws.

ANALYSIS:

In Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951), the Supreme Court upheld the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution, including its Fundamental Rights, through the Constitution (First Amendment) Act of 1951. The Court's reasoning was rooted in the interpretation of Article 368, which grants Parliament the authority to amend the Constitution. The Court distinguished between ordinary laws and constitutional amendments, emphasizing that the term "law" in Article 13(2), which protects Fundamental Rights from being violated by legislation, does not encompass constitutional amendments. As a result, the Court concluded that Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution, including provisions related to Fundamental Rights, provided the amendment followed the procedure laid down in Article 368. This judgment set a significant precedent by affirming that constitutional amendments made under Article 368 are immune from judicial scrutiny under Article 13(2). While this ruling reflected the Court's acceptance of Parliament's broad authority to amend the Constitution, it also raised concerns about the potential for excessive encroachment on Fundamental Rights. The decision marked an early stage in the ongoing debate over the balance of power between Parliament and the judiciary in constitutional matters, especially regarding the protection of individual rights.