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

Petitioner Shankari Prasad Singh Deo & Others (Zamindars)

Respondent Union of India & State of Bihar

Case Type Writ Petition (under Article 32)

Year It Took 1951 (Amendment passed) - 1951 (Decision)

Judges & Opinions

CJI H.J. KaniaFavored
Justice M. Patanjali SastriFavored (Authored)
Justice B.K. MukherjeaFavored
Justice S.R. DasFavored
Justice Chandrasekhara AiyyarFavored

Acts & Sections Used [ 3+ ]

Constitution of India (Article 13(2), 19(1)(f), 31, 31A, 31B, 368)
Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951
Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950

Key Citations [ 0+ ]

This case was the first major challenge to Parliament's power to amend the Constitution, specifically concerning Fundamental Rights. The petitioners, Zamindars affected by land reform laws, challenged the validity of the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951.

The First Amendment had introduced Articles 31A and 31B and the Ninth Schedule to protect land reform laws (like the Bihar Land Reforms Act) from being challenged on the grounds that they violated Fundamental Rights (particularly the right to property, then under Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31). The petitioners argued that this amendment itself violated Article 13(2), which stated that the State shall not make any "law" taking away or abridging Fundamental Rights.

ARGUMENTS

Petitioner's Case (Shankari Prasad & Others)

A constitutional amendment passed under Article 368 is a "law" within the meaning of Article 13(2).
Since the First Amendment abridged Fundamental Rights (specifically the right to property), it was void under Article 13(2).
Parliament's power to amend under Article 368 did not extend to taking away Fundamental Rights.

Respondent's Case (Union of India)

The power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is distinct from the ordinary legislative power of Parliament.
The term "law" in Article 13(2) refers only to ordinary laws made under legislative power, not constitutional amendments made under constituent power (Article 368).
Therefore, a constitutional amendment is not subject to the limitation imposed by Article 13(2) and can amend Fundamental Rights.

Case Progression Timeline

Constitution Adopted

The Constitution of India comes into force, including Fundamental Rights and Article 13(2).

January 26, 1950

Land Reform Laws Challenged

Various state land reform laws (like Bihar's) are challenged in courts for violating the fundamental right to property.

1950-1951

Champakam Dorairajan Judgment

SC strikes down caste-based reservations, highlighting potential conflicts between Fundamental Rights and state policy.

April 9, 1951

First Amendment Passed

Parliament passes the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, adding Articles 15(4), 31A, 31B, and the Ninth Schedule to protect land reforms and reservations.

June 18, 1951

Writ Petitions Filed

Zamindars, including Shankari Prasad, challenge the First Amendment Act in the Supreme Court.

Mid-1951

Supreme Court Judgment

The 5-judge bench unanimously upholds the validity of the First Amendment Act.

October 5, 1951

The Supreme Court unanimously rejected the petitioners' arguments. It held that Parliament's power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 was a constituent power, different from its ordinary legislative power.

Therefore, a constitutional amendment was not a "law" as meant by Article 13(2), and Parliament *could* amend Fundamental Rights. The First Amendment Act, 1951, was thus held to be valid.

COURT'S ANALYSIS

Justice Patanjali Sastri, delivering the unanimous judgment, focused on the distinction between legislative power (making ordinary laws) and constituent power (amending the constitution). The Court reasoned that Article 13(2)'s prohibition against laws abridging fundamental rights applied only to ordinary legislation, not to amendments made under the specific process outlined in Article 368. It held that Article 368 contained both the power and the procedure for amendment, and this power was plenary (complete) and included the ability to amend any part of the Constitution, including Part III (Fundamental Rights). The Court interpreted the word "law" in Article 13(2) narrowly to exclude constitutional amendments.

FINAL VERDICT

The Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, was held to be valid.
Parliament has the power under Article 368 to amend any part of the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights in Part III.
A constitutional amendment passed under Article 368 is not considered a "law" within the meaning of Article 13(2).
The writ petitions challenging the First Amendment were dismissed.

RATIO DECIDENDI

The power to amend the Constitution conferred upon Parliament under Article 368 is a constituent power, distinct from ordinary legislative power. The term "law" in Article 13(2) encompasses only ordinary laws enacted by legislatures and does not include constitutional amendments made in the exercise of constituent power. Therefore, Fundamental Rights are not immune from constitutional amendment under Article 368.

*(Note: This position was later affirmed in Sajjan Singh (1965) but overruled in I.C. Golaknath (1967), before being partially restored with limitations by the Basic Structure Doctrine in Kesavananda Bharati (1973).)*