Shankari Prasad Case [Shankari Prasad vs Union of India]
Shankari Prasad Case (AIR 1951 SC 458)
Background
The case of Shankari Prasad Singh Deo vs Union of India was decided by the Supreme Court of India in 1951. It was the first significant constitutional case involving the amendability of the Constitution by Parliament.
Facts of the Case
The Government of India enacted the First Amendment to the Constitution in 1951.
The First Amendment included, among other provisions, an amendment to Article 368 that gave Parliament the power to amend the Constitution.
It also amended Article 13, specifically Article 13(2), to clarify that laws enacted to implement Directive Principles (especially land reforms) would not be invalidated on the ground of violating Fundamental Rights.
Shankari Prasad Singh Deo, a member of the Orissa Legislative Assembly, challenged the validity of the First Amendment.
He argued that Parliament had no power to amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368 because Article 13 says that any law inconsistent with Fundamental Rights is void.
He contended that Parliament could not amend the Constitution in a way that takes away or abridges Fundamental Rights.
Legal Issue
Can Parliament amend the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, using its power under Article 368?
Or does Article 13 restrict Parliament from making laws or amendments that infringe Fundamental Rights?
Arguments
Petitioner (Shankari Prasad):
Parliament cannot amend or repeal Fundamental Rights because they are basic features of the Constitution. Article 13 prohibits any law infringing Fundamental Rights, so amendments curtailing Fundamental Rights would be unconstitutional.
Respondent (Union of India):
Article 368 grants Parliament the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights. Article 13 applies only to ordinary laws, not constitutional amendments. Therefore, Parliament’s power under Article 368 is plenary.
Supreme Court Judgment
The Supreme Court, by a majority, upheld the validity of the First Amendment.
It held that Parliament has the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, under Article 368.
The Court distinguished between a “law” under Article 13 and a “constitutional amendment” under Article 368.
It held that constitutional amendments are not “law” within the meaning of Article 13, so Article 13 does not apply to constitutional amendments.
Therefore, Parliament’s power to amend Fundamental Rights is valid.
Key Points in the Judgment
Amendments are not laws:
Constitutional amendments under Article 368 are not “law” as referred to in Article 13; hence Article 13 cannot be invoked to challenge amendments.
Parliament’s power is plenary:
Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution includes the power to amend Fundamental Rights.
No implied limitation:
There is no implied limitation on Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
Significance of the Case
This judgment established the supremacy of Parliament in amending the Constitution.
It meant that Fundamental Rights were not beyond the reach of constitutional amendment.
The case laid the foundation for future constitutional amendment jurisprudence.
It was the first in a series of cases (like Golak Nath and Kesavananda Bharati) that refined and reinterpreted this principle.
Subsequent Developments
The Golak Nath case (1967) overturned this view, holding that Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights.
Later, in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), the Supreme Court established the Basic Structure Doctrine, holding that Parliament can amend the Constitution but cannot alter its basic structure, including Fundamental Rights.
Summary
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Case Name | Shankari Prasad Singh Deo vs Union of India |
| Year | 1951 |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Issue | Whether Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368 |
| Judgment | Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution including Fundamental Rights |
| Key Principle | Constitutional amendments are not “law” under Article 13; hence Article 13 does not restrict Parliament’s power to amend Fundamental Rights |
| Impact | Affirmed Parliament’s unlimited power to amend Constitution; later modified by Golak Nath and Kesavananda Bharati |
RELATED Blog
0 comments