Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India (1951)

The case of Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India (1951) is a landmark judgement in Indian constitutional history, marking the first major judicial interpretation of the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution. It addressed the crucial question of whether Parliament could amend the Fundamental Rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution under Article 368. This decision laid the foundation for the long-standing constitutional debate on the relationship between Parliament’s amending power and the supremacy of Fundamental Rights.

Background and Context

After the adoption of the Constitution of India in 1950, the government introduced land reform measures aimed at redistributing land and abolishing the zamindari system. These reforms were designed to promote social justice and reduce economic inequalities. However, several landowners, including Shankari Prasad Singh Deo, challenged these laws, arguing that they violated their Fundamental Rights to property under Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31 of the Constitution.
To protect land reform laws from being struck down by the courts, the government enacted the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, which inserted Articles 31A and 31B and created the Ninth Schedule. This amendment allowed certain laws, especially those related to agrarian reforms, to be placed in the Ninth Schedule, thereby making them immune from judicial review.
Shankari Prasad and other petitioners challenged the validity of this constitutional amendment before the Supreme Court, leading to one of the earliest constitutional controversies in independent India.

Constitutional Provisions Involved

The key constitutional provisions in question were:

• Article 13(2): Prohibits the State from making any law that takes away or abridges the Fundamental Rights.
• Article 19(1)(f): Guarantees the right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property.
• Article 31: Provides the right to property and conditions for compulsory acquisition by the State.
• Article 368: Empowers Parliament to amend the Constitution.

The central issue was whether the word “law” in Article 13(2) included a constitutional amendment made under Article 368.

Issues Before the Court

The Supreme Court was required to determine the following constitutional questions:

1. Whether Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 includes the power to amend Fundamental Rights.
2. Whether the First Amendment Act, 1951, was void under Article 13(2) for infringing the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
3. Whether the term “law” in Article 13(2) refers to only ordinary legislative laws or also includes constitutional amendments.

These questions directly concerned the scope of parliamentary supremacy and the protection of Fundamental Rights.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners’ Arguments (Shankari Prasad and others):

• They contended that the term “law” in Article 13(2) includes all kinds of laws, including constitutional amendments.
• Hence, Parliament could not amend or abridge Fundamental Rights, as that would contravene the express prohibition in Article 13(2).
• The First Amendment Act, 1951, was unconstitutional as it curtailed Fundamental Rights through Articles 31A and 31B.

Respondent’s Arguments (Union of India):

• The government argued that “law” in Article 13 refers only to ordinary legislative laws, not constitutional amendments made under Article 368.
• The power to amend the Constitution is a constituent power, distinct from ordinary legislative power.
• Therefore, amendments made under Article 368 cannot be questioned under Article 13(2).
• The purpose of the amendment was to give effect to Directive Principles of State Policy, ensuring agrarian reforms and social justice.

Judgement of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous five-judge Bench decision delivered by Chief Justice H.J. Kania, upheld the validity of the First Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951. The Court ruled in favour of the Union of India and made several important observations that shaped constitutional jurisprudence.
Key findings of the judgement:

• The term “law” in Article 13(2) refers only to ordinary laws made in exercise of legislative power, not to constitutional amendments made under Article 368.
• Parliament, while acting under Article 368, exercises constituent power, which is different from legislative power.
• Therefore, an amendment to the Constitution under Article 368 cannot be challenged as violating Fundamental Rights.
• The First Amendment Act, 1951 was valid and within the powers of Parliament.
• The addition of Articles 31A and 31B and the creation of the Ninth Schedule were constitutionally valid measures to protect laws relating to land reforms.

Significance of the Judgement

The Shankari Prasad case was the first judicial affirmation of the Parliament’s absolute power to amend any part of the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights. It established a precedent that remained authoritative for over a decade.
Its main contributions to constitutional law include:

• Recognition of Constituent Power: The Court made a clear distinction between Parliament’s legislative power and its constituent (amending) power.
• Supremacy of Parliament: The judgement upheld the supremacy of Parliament in amending the Constitution, even to the extent of modifying Fundamental Rights.
• Validation of the First Amendment: The decision provided constitutional legitimacy to the First Amendment and the creation of the Ninth Schedule.
• Facilitation of Agrarian Reforms: By upholding the amendment, the Court allowed the government to proceed with its land reform agenda without judicial interference.

Subsequent Developments and Related Cases

The Shankari Prasad decision did not settle the constitutional debate permanently. It was followed by a series of landmark cases that revisited and revised the interpretation of Parliament’s amending power.

1. Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965):The Supreme Court reaffirmed the Shankari Prasad decision, upholding Parliament’s power to amend Fundamental Rights.
2. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967):In a major reversal, the Supreme Court held that Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights, overruling Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh. The Court held that the power to amend did not include the power to abridge Fundamental Rights.
3. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973):The Supreme Court, by a 13-judge Bench, settled the issue by propounding the Basic Structure Doctrine, holding that while Parliament has wide amending powers under Article 368, it cannot alter the basic structure or essential features of the Constitution.
4. Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980):This case reaffirmed the Kesavananda Bharati doctrine and declared that limited amending power is itself a part of the basic structure.

Thus, Shankari Prasad stands as the starting point in the evolution of the doctrine concerning Parliament’s amending powers and the limits imposed by the Constitution’s basic structure.