Name of the Case: – Sri Shankari Prasad Deo vs Union of India (Shankari Prasad Case)
Citations: – AIR 1951 SC 458, 1951 SCR 89
Date of Judgement: – October 5,1951
Court: – Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
Petitioner: – Sri Shankari Prasad Singh Deo
Respondent: – Union of India and State of Bihar (among other cases)
Bench: – Hon’ble Chief Justice J. Hiralal Kania, Hon’ble M. Patanjali Sastri, Hon’ble Sudhi Ranjan Das, Hon’ble N. Chandrasekhara Aiyar
Referred Article: – 13(2), 31-A, 31-B, 32, 132, 368, 379,392 of the Constitution of India.
Abstract of the Case:
This case is very important itself, as whenever we read about Indian polity, inequality or Indian economy we read about a term “Basic Structure”. In this case we also read the development of basic structure. After Independence, for the social growth and for boosting the economy, the Indian Government introduced several changes such as land redistribution among different types of landowners. After this change, some people were against this because they found this a violation of their right to property.
These changes were supported by the Allahabad High Court and the Bhopal High Court, while the Patna High Court declares the act (the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950) unconstitutional and said that it will go against the Article 13(2) of the Constitution of India. Along with the Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, there were so many people who were against the act and showed their disagreement towards it and said that the lawyers had misused the rights given by the constitution.
After 14th months from the date of introduction of the Constitution of India, the Parliament had passed the 1st Constitutional Amendment to support the rural reforms and to make it legal. The Supreme Court had approved this rural reform, and this amendment has added Article 31-A and 32-B.
FACTS:
After the Independence of India, in the state of Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh the agrarian land reforms was enacted which was known as the Zamindari Abolition Act.
The Zamindars over there were not happy with this because they found they were supposed to lose their land or landholdings.
A petition has been filed in the High Court of Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh by the Zamindars. The Zamindars filed this petition because they found this law to be a violation of their Fundamental Rights.
The Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 had been invalidated by the Patna High Court by saying that this act is unconstitutional and said that it will go against Article 13(2) of the Indian Constitution. Whereas the validity of the legislation had been given in Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh by the High Courts at Allahabad and Nagpur.
After the invalidation given by the Patna High Court, the people from different states of India had started showing that they were not okay with the act. So, putting an end of the various litigation regarding the same issue of land reforms the Government (here the government is provisional Government, or the provisional Parliament because at that time the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha were not formed) brought forward a remedy in the form of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of India.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the Zamindars had given the petition and raised the question that the 1st Amendment in the Constitution of India in 1951, which the Parliament had passed and inserted the Article 31A and 31B in the Constitution of India is unconstitutional and void. And it was said that whenever any government will acquire any land for land reform then it will not fall under the purview of judicial review and judiciary cannot review that and taking this into consideration Schedule IX has been added and all the rules regarding this will come under Schedule IX. The court cannot challenge or review anything that will fall under Schedule IX.
Now, there was a clash caused between the amendment and the Constitution (Fundamental Rights).
Issues Raised:
The issues which were raised in the case of Shankari Prasad vs Union of India before the Supreme Court were:
- Whether the 1st Amendment act was passed by Parliament Unconstitutional?
- Whether the Parliament have authority to amend Fundamental rights?
- Whether the word “Law” in Article 13(2) includes the Constituent laws?
Judgement:
The first Amendment Act 1951 of the Constitution of India which has introduced Article 31A and 31B into the Constitution of India, does not violate the Constitution of India in any way.
Under Article 368 of the Constitution of India the provisional Parliament is certainly authorized to make amendment in the Constitution. The term “two houses” in Article 368 does not notify that the amending body is different or separate from the Parliament. Instead, it encircles both the Houses of the Parliament and the President.
In the case of Shankari Prasad, it was held by the court that the words “all the powers conferred by the provisions of this Constitution on Parliament” in Article 379 are not limited to the powers exercised by the provisional Parliament which consists of a single chamber. They also have the power to make amendments to the Constitution as given in Article 368.
The President issued an order (order no.2) on 26th January 1950, it is the power of the President given under Article 391 to adopt article 368 by changing terms is valid and not unconstitutional. As stated under article 392, it is not obliged that the President must wait till the provisional Parliament utilizes its power before embracing a particular article.
In terms of the procedure outlined, it is believed that Article 368 is a comprehensive code, and it is not right that any amendment to a bill for the amendment of the Constitution after introducing it will render the resulting Amendment Act invalid.
In the case of Shankari Prasad vs Union of India, it was held by the court that generally the term “law” includes Constitutional Law, it is very clear that there is a difference between Constitutional laws made through constituent power and the ordinary laws created through legislative power. As per Article 13 of the Constitution of India, “law” should be understood as the rules or regulations made through ordinary legislative power not by the amendment to the Constitution made through constituent power. Hence, Article 13(2) of the Constitution does not apply to amendments which are made under Article 368 of the Constitution.
After that it was held by the court in the case of Shankari Prasad that the right of High court under Article 226 i.e., to issue writs for upholding rights granted by Part III of the Constitution is not restricted after the introduction of Article 31A and 31B by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act of 1951. Also, they do not restrict the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court given under Article 132 and 136 (i.e., the right to hear the appeals related to the issuance or refusal of such writs). Certain types of cases given in Part III (i.e., from the scope of Part III of the Constitution) have been simply excluded by them. Under the proviso to Article 368(b), these articles do not require corroboration.
In the case of Shankari Prasad vs Union of India, 1951 the court held that as Article 31A and 31B pertain to land matters which comes under the State List (Item 18 of List II) that’s why they are not invalid. Article 31A and 31B are factually Constitutional amendments and only the Parliament has the authority to enact them.
Issue-wise Judgement:
- Whether the 1st Amendment act passed by Parliament unconstitutional?
It was considered by the Supreme Court that the 1st Amendment Act passed by the Parliament was not unconstitutional. - Whether the Parliament have authority to amend Fundamental Rights?
Through the process summarized in Article 368 of the Constitution, Parliament has the authority to amend Fundamental Rights.
- Whether the word “law” in Article 13(2) includes the Constituent laws?
In Article 13(2), the word “law” does not include Constituent laws.
Summary:
The validity of the 1st Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951 was upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of Shankari Prasad vs Union of India. The amendment (which added Articles 31A and 31B to the Constitutional of India) was challenged by the petitioner, as it was argued that the fundamental right {(right to property under Article 19(1)(f)} was violated by the amendment.
Although, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Shankari Prasad vs Union of India that the power to do amendment in the Constitution has been given to the Parliament, together with the fundamental rights under Article 368.
It was held by the Court that the power given to Parliament to make amendments in the Constitution is very broad and could be used to make changes in any part of the Constitution along with the fundamental rights. The principle that the Parliament had the authority to make amendment in the fundamental rights was established in the case of Shankari Prasad vs Union of India through the 1st Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951.
FAQs:
What is the Principle of Basic Structure?
Who has the power to do amendment in the Constitution of India?
What does Article 368 say?
Reference:
Anjali Kumari
BBA.LL.B (Hons)
Teerthanker Mahaveer University
