CASE COMMENT ON :-

Sri Shankari Prasad V. Union of India ( AIR 1951 SC 458)

Submitted by Sonia

Roll No. 216506

Exam Roll No. 19310806779

Semester Vth

Section A

Case Details :-

Citation 1951 SCR 89 : AIR 1951 SC 458

Court Hon’ble Supreme Court of India

Decided on October 5, 1951

Petitioner Sri Shankari Prasad Singh Deo

Respondent Union of India and State of Bihar & others

Corum Constitutional Bench

● M. Patanjali Sastri

● Hiralal Kania( CJ)

● B.K Mukherjee

● Sudhi Ranjan Das

● N. Chandrasekhara Aiyar, JJ.

Introduction

The constitution of India is one of the most fascinating and largest written constitutions in the
world. It consists of a preamble, fundamental rights, fundamental duties, and directive principles
of state policy. One of the striking features of our constitution is its flexibility. The makers of the
constitution have inserted Article 368 which provides power to the Parliament to amend the
provisions of the constitution to adapt to the changing needs of the society. If the parliament is
given absolute power to amend the constitution, the rights of the people can be jeopardized.
Therefore, the constitution puts certain restrictions on the constituent power of the parliament.
This topic is further discussed in various landmark cases giving rise to the Basic Structure
Doctrine. Let us analyze the case of Shankari Prasad v Union of India in answering the questions
of the amending power of the constitution.

 
Facts:-
In this case, The Zamindari Abolition Act was challenged by the petitioner along with other
zamindars registered under this act, whose land was taken away by the government. They
contended that the above act violated their fundamental right to hold property as provided in
Article 19 and Article 31 of the Indian Constitution. The Patna High Court declared Bihar Land
Reforms Act 1950 as unconstitutional whereas the High courts at Allahabad and Nagpur upheld
the constitutionality of the legislation in Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh.

Due to the difference in opinion of these High Courts and several litigations concerning the same
issue, the Government passed the First Constitutional Amendment Act (1951). Swiftly reacting
to this move of the government, the zamindars exercised their right to constitutional remedies
under Article 32 and questioned its validity.

Issues :-

Whether the First Constitutional Amendment 1951 passed by the parliament which inserted 
Article 31A and 31B is valid?

Whether the fundamental rights provided in part III of the constitution can be amended by the
parliament under Article 368?

Whether the word ‘law’ used in Article 13 also includes the constitutional amendment acts
(constituent laws)?
 
Legal provisions involved :-

● Article 13(2) of the Constitution of India

● Article 31A and 31B of the Constitution of India
● Article 368 of the Constitution of India
● Article 132 of the Constitution of India
● Article 226 of the Constitution of India
 
Judgement :-

The case was heard before the Supreme Court by a five-judge Bench wherein the judgment was
delivered by the Hon’ble Judge M Patanjali Sastri. The court upheld the validity of the First
Constitutional Amendment Act (1951) and thereby dismissed the petition. It ruled that the word
‘law’ in Article 13(2) includes only ordinary laws and not constituent laws. Thus, the amendment
made under Article 368 is not affected by Article 13(2). It also held that the power of the
Parliament to amend the constitution under Article 368 also includes the power to amend
Fundamental Rights. Therefore, any constitutional amendment enacted by the Parliament which
abridges the Fundamental Rights will not be void under Article 13.

However, the same question came before the Supreme Court in future cases, some of them
upheld it, while the others overruled the decision of this case.

 
Comment on case  :-

In this case, there was a conflict in the operation of Article 368 and Article 13 of the Indian
constitution. Hence the court applied Harmonious construction to prevent the conflict. It also laid
down that the Parliament enjoys two different types of power viz; the ordinary legislative power
and constitutional legislative power. The court observed that “We are of opinion that in the
context of Article 13 law must be taken to mean rules and regulations made in the exercise of
ordinary legislative power and not amendments to the constitution made in the exercise of
constituent power with the result that Article 13(2) does not affect amendments made under
Article 368.” By delivering this Judgement, the court has narrowed the scope of Article 13 and
widened the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution. The parliament was given
unfettered power to amend the constitution which also includes taking away the Fundamental
Rights of the Constitution.

The Doctrine of Basic structure which was adopted much later in the Keshavananda Bharati case
should have been adopted in this case. It is a well-established doctrine wherein the rights of the
citizens and the basic features of the constitution are protected. Justice Mudholkar in his
dissenting opinion says, “It is also a matter for consideration whether making a change in a basic
feature of the constitution can be regarded merely as an amendment or would it be in effect,
rewriting a part of the constitution; and if the latter, would it be within the purview of Article
368?”

The court has applied literal interpretation and read the text of the constitution as it is without
applying any legal reasoning. This led to ambiguity on those provisions which are silent on
certain aspects.

 However, the above decision was overruled in the case of I.C Golaknath vs. the State of Punjab.
In this case, the court held that there was no difference between the ordinary legislative power
and constituent power. Further, it said that Article 368 gives only the procedure to amend, the
power to amend comes from the ordinary legislative power of the Parliament.
 
Conclusion

The case of Shankari Prasad v Union of India has played an important role in the development of
the interpretation of the constitution. It was in this case that the court discussed and gave its
opinion on the competency of the Parliament to amend the Fundamental Rights. The Supreme
court reversed its earlier stand in the Golak Nath case (1967). This was further overruled in the
Kesavananda Bharati case and the court laid down the doctrine of the Basic structure. Thus,
Shankari Prasad vs. Union of India has indirectly contributed to the creation of the Basic
structure doctrine, which protects the basic features of the constitution from being amended. The
court, by interpreting the meaning of Article 13 in this case, has given scope for correcting the
ambiguities in this provision. It has further helped in widening the objectives of Article 13 and
Article 368. This has led to a better interpretation of these articles in various cases. In a nutshell,
the role played by the Shankari Prasad case is crucial in the understanding of the development of
the constitution and the concept of the amendment.

References:-

● Shankari Prasad v Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 458

● The Constitution of India 1949
● Golaknath v State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1643
● Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461
● Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (Amendability of Fundamental Rights) – Law Circa
● Case analysis of Shankari Prasad v. Union of India – Interesting Laws
● Shankari Prasad Singh Deo vs Union Of India – Advocatespedia