Shankari Prasad Case:
In the landmark case of Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951), the Supreme Court of India contended that the Parliament's power of amending the Constitution under Article 368 includes the power to amend the Fundamental Rights guaranteed in Part III as well.

Background:
The case arose after the First Amendment to the Indian Constitution was challenged on the grounds that it violated the fundamental rights of citizens. The amendment, among other things, inserted Article 31A and Article 31B into the Constitution, which provided for the protection of laws relating to agrarian reforms from judicial scrutiny. The petitioner, Shankari Prasad, argued that these amendments infringed upon his right to property guaranteed under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution.

Supreme Court's reasoning:
The Supreme Court, in its judgment, held that the power of amendment granted to the Parliament under Article 368 is plenary and includes the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights. The Court reasoned that:

1. Constitutional Interpretation: The Court interpreted the language of Article 368, which provides for the procedure of constitutional amendment, and held that it does not impose any limitation on the amending power of the Parliament.

2. Constituent Power: The Court emphasized that the amending power is derived from the constituent power of the Parliament, which is a sovereign body representing the will of the people. Therefore, the Parliament has the authority to amend any provision of the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights.

3. Ensuring Flexibility: The Court held that the power of amendment is essential to ensure the flexibility and adaptability of the Constitution. By allowing for amendments to the Fundamental Rights, the Constitution can be modified to meet the changing needs and aspirations of the society.

4. Constitutional Balance: The Court acknowledged the significance of Fundamental Rights in protecting individual liberties but also recognized the need to strike a balance between the rights of the individual and the larger interests of the society. It opined that the amending power of the Parliament allows for such a balance to be maintained.

Impact:
The Shankari Prasad case established the principle that the Parliament has the power to amend the Fundamental Rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution. This decision was later reaffirmed in subsequent cases, such as Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965) and ultimately in Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967), where the Supreme Court overruled its earlier stance and held that the Parliament cannot amend the Fundamental Rights. However, the decision in Shankari Prasad case remained significant in shaping the interpretation of Article 368 and the amending power of the Parliament.