Shankari Prasad Case (1951)

– Parliament’s Power to Amend Fundamental Rights

Background of the Case

After the Champakam Dorairajan judgment, Parliament enacted the 1st Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951.

This Amendment:

• Inserted Article 31A and Article 31B
• Curtailed the Right to Property
• Placed certain laws in the Ninth Schedule to protect them from judicial review

The Amendment was challenged by Shankari Prasad, who argued that:

• Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights
• Such an amendment violates Article 13(2), which prohibits the State from making any law that takes away or abridges Fundamental Rights

Core Constitutional Questions

The Supreme Court had to decide:

1. Does Parliament’s power under Article 368 include the power to amend Fundamental Rights?
2. Is a Constitutional Amendment a “law” under Article 13(2)?

Supreme Court’s Judgement

(a) Parliament Can Amend Fundamental Rights

The Supreme Court held that:

• Article 368 gives Parliament the power to amend any part of the Constitution
• This power includes Part III, i.e., Fundamental Rights

Therefore:

Fundamental Rights are not inviolable or immune from amendment.

(b) Constitutional Amendment Is Not “Law” Under Article 13(2)

The Court made a crucial distinction between:

• Ordinary legislative law, and
• Constituent law (constitutional amendment)

It held that:

• The word “law” in Article 13(2) refers only to ordinary law
• A constitutional amendment made under Article 368 is constituent law
• Hence, Article 13(2) does not apply to constitutional amendments

As a result:

• An amendment abridging Fundamental Rights cannot be declared void under Article 13(2)

Validity of the 1st Amendment Upheld

Based on this reasoning, the Court:

• Upheld the validity of the 1st Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951
• Confirmed the constitutional validity of Articles 31A and 31B
• Allowed restrictions on the Right to Property

This judgment ensured the survival of land reform laws and other socio-economic legislation.

Impact of the Judgement

(a) Separation of Powers: Legislative vs Constituent

The Court clearly separated:

• Parliament’s ordinary legislative power
• Parliament’s constituent power under Article 368

This distinction became a cornerstone of later constitutional cases.

(b) Fundamental Rights Not Absolute

The judgment rejected the idea that:

• Fundamental Rights are sacrosanct or beyond amendment

Instead, it held that:

• Parliament has supreme amending authority within the Constitution

Judicial Legacy and Evolution

• Shankari Prasad (1951) → Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights
• Sajjan Singh (1964) → Reaffirmed Shankari Prasad
• Golak Nath (1967) → Overruled Shankari Prasad; FRs cannot be amended
• Kesavananda Bharati (1973) → Parliament can amend FRs but not the Basic Structure

Thus, this case represents the first phase of amendment jurisprudence.

Significance for Indian Polity and UPSC

• Introduced the concept of constituent power
• Clarified the scope of Articles 13 and 368
• Enabled socio-economic reforms through constitutional amendments
• Laid the groundwork for the Basic Structure debate

Summary:

The Shankari Prasad Case (1951) held that Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368, ruled that constitutional amendments are not “law” under Article 13(2), upheld the 1st Amendment, and remained the law until it was overruled in Golak Nath (1967).