Shankari Prasad Case [Shankari Prasad vs Union of India]

Case Name: Sri Sankari Prasad Singh Deo vs Union of India [Shankari Prasad Case]

Equivalent Citations: AIR 1951 SC 458, 1951 SCR 89

Date of Judgement: October 5, 1951

Court: Hon’ble Supreme Court of India

Petitioner: Sri Sankari 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 B.K. Mukherjee, Hon’ble Sudhi Ranjan Das, Hon’ble N. Chandrasekhara Aiyar

Referred Articles: 13(2), 31-A, 31-B, 32, 132, 368, 379, 392 of the Constitution of India.

After gaining independence, the Indian government introduced several changes in rural areas to boost economic and social growth. These changes included land redistribution among different types of landowners. However, some people went to court, arguing that these changes violated the right to property.

While the Allahabad and Bhopal High Courts supported these changes, the Patna High Court declared the Bihar Land Reforms Act of 1950 unconstitutional, saying it went against Article 13(2) of the Indian Constitution. This decision caused a lot of disagreement in the political world. Even Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru expressed his disappointment, saying that lawyers had misused the constitution.

To support and make these rural reforms legal, the parliament passed the first Constitutional Amendment just 14 months after the constitution was first introduced. This amendment added Article 31-A and Article 31B. As a result, the Supreme Court approved the rural reforms.

Facts of Shankari Prasad Case

To abolish the zamindari system that existed throughout India, certain state legislatures in Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh passed the Zamindari Abolition Act. This law aimed to redistribute vast land holdings held by wealthy zamindars among the local residents. Some zamindars, feeling aggrieved, challenged this law in the courts, arguing that it was illegal and violated their Fundamental Right to Property as guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution.

The Patna High Court ruled that the Bihar Act was illegal, while the Allahabad High Court in Uttar Pradesh and the Nagpur High Court in Madhya Pradesh upheld the legality of the law in their respective states. Appeals and petitions from these decisions and others were pending.

Amid these legal proceedings, the Union Parliament sought to put an end to all the lawsuits by introducing a Bill to amend the Constitution. After undergoing various modifications, the Bill was passed as the Constitution (First Amendment) Act of 1951, with the required majority.

The Amendment Act validated the Zamindari Abolition Laws and placed limitations on the Fundamental Right to Property. New Articles 31A and 31B were added to the Constitution to authorize the challenged measures.

In response, the zamindars filed petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution [Shankari Prasad Case], submitting a writ petition before the Supreme Court to challenge the Amendment Act, claiming it was illegal and void.

Issues Raised

The issues before the Supreme Court in Shankari Prasad vs Union of India were:

• Whether the First Amendment Act 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?

Appellant’s Arguments

The knowledgeable counsel in Shankari Prasad vs UOI argued that only the two houses of Parliament, as the designated body, have the authority to amend the constitution. Therefore, the provisional Parliament was not legally empowered to exercise this authority.

Furthermore, the counsel contended that Article 368 is a self-contained provision and does not allow for any amendments to be made to a bill after it has been introduced in the House. Since it’s acknowledged that the bill in this case was amended in various ways during its passage, it cannot be considered as having been passed following the procedure outlined in Article 368.

Lastly, the counsel in Shankari Prasad Case asserted that land-related matters fall under List 2 of the seventh schedule, which is within the purview of the State Legislature. Therefore, the Parliament lacked the jurisdiction to enact laws pertaining to land matters.

Respondents Agruments

The attorney representing the respondent in Shankari Prasad Case pointed out that the Constitution allows for three categories of amendments to its provisions:

• Amendments that can be made with a simple majority.
• Amendments that require a special majority as specified in Article 368.
• Amendments that necessitate ratification by resolutions passed by at least half of the States listed in parts A and B of the First Schedule, in addition to the special majority mentioned in the second category.

The counsel argued that the first category, which includes the Parliament comprising both houses and the President, is conferred as the authority for making amendments.

The counsel contended further in Shankari Prasad Case that accepting the petitioner’s argument that the reference to the “two houses” in Article 368 makes it inapplicable to the provisional parliament could undermine the very purpose of Article 379.

Finally, the counsel emphasised in Shankari Prasad vs Union of India that the petitioner’s argument, stating that Article 368 should not be considered a self-contained provision, is incorrect. They pointed out certain procedural inconsistencies in how a bill is to be introduced, and passed in each House of Parliament and how the President’s assent is to be obtained.

Judgement in Shankari Prasad Case

The Constitution (First Amendment) Act of 1951, which introduced Articles 31A and 31B into the Indian Constitution, is not in violation of the Constitution.

The provisional Parliament is indeed authorised to amend the Constitution under Article 368. The use of the term “two Houses” in Article 368 does not imply that the amending body is separate from Parliament; rather, it encompasses both Houses of Parliament and the President.

The court held in Shankari Prasad Case that  The words “all the powers conferred by the provisions of this Constitution on Parliament” in Article 379 are not limited to the powers that the provisional Parliament, consisting of a single chamber, can exercise. They also include the power to amend the Constitution as granted by Article 368.

The Constitution (Removal of Difficulties) Order No. 2, issued by the President on January 26, 1950, adapting Article 368 by changing certain terms, is within the powers granted to the President by Article 391 and is not unconstitutional. There is no requirement in Article 392 that the President must wait until the provisional Parliament exercises its power before adopting a specific article.

The belief that Article 368 is a comprehensive code in terms of the procedure it outlines and that any amendments to a Bill for the amendment of the Constitution after its introduction render the resulting Amendment Act invalid, is mistaken.

The court held in Shankari Prasad Case that while the term “law” generally includes constitutional law, there is a clear distinction between ordinary laws created through legislative power and constitutional laws made through constituent power. In the context of Article 13, “law” should be understood as rules or regulations created through ordinary legislative power, not amendments to the Constitution made through constituent power. Consequently, Article 13(2) does not apply to amendments made under Article 368.

Further, the court held in Shankari Prasad Case that Articles 31A and 31B, introduced by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act of 1951, do not limit the authority of the High Court under Article 226 to issue writs for upholding rights granted by Part III of the Constitution, nor do they restrict the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Articles 132 and 136 to hear appeals related to the issuance or refusal of such writs. They simply exclude certain types of cases from the scope of Part III. Therefore, these articles do not require ratification under the proviso to Article 368(b).

The court held in Shankari Prasad vs Union of India that Articles 31A and 31B are not invalid because they pertain to land matters, which fall under the State List (Item 18 of List II). These articles are essentially constitutional amendments and only Parliament possesses the authority to enact them.

Issue-Wise Judgement

Whether the First Amendment Act passed by Parliament unconstitutional?

No, the First Amendment Act passed by Parliament was not considered unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Whether the Parliament have authority to amend Fundamental Rights?

Yes, Parliament has the authority to amend Fundamental Rights through the process outlined in Article 368.

Whether the word ‘law’ in Article 13(2) includes the Constituent laws?

No, the word ‘law’ in Article 13(2) does not include Constituent laws, meaning amendments to the Constitution made through the constituent power.

Shankari Prasad Case Summary

In the case of Shankari Prasad vs Union of India, the Supreme Court of India upheld the validity of the First Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951. The petitioner challenged the amendment, which added Articles 31A and 31B to the Indian Constitution, arguing that it violated the fundamental right to property under Article 19(1)(f).

However, the Supreme Court in Shankari Prasad Case ruled that the Parliament had the power to amend the Constitution, including fundamental rights, under Article 368. The Court held that the amending power of the Parliament was very broad and could be used to alter any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights. Shankari Prasad Case established the principle that the Parliament had the authority to amend fundamental rights through constitutional amendments.