Shankari Prasad Case [Shankari Prasad vs Union of India] | Important Acts and Laws for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

Introduction

• 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: Honorable Supreme Court of India
• Petitioner: Sri Sankari Prasad Singh Deo
• Respondent: Union of India and State of Bihar (among other cases)
• Bench: Honorable Chief Justice J. Hiralal Kania, Honorable M. Patanjali Sastri, Honorable B.K. Mukherjee, Honorable Sudhi Ranjan Das, Honorable N. Chandrasekhara Aiyar
• Referred Articles: 13(2), 31-A, 31-B, 32, 132, 368, 379, 392 of the Constitution of India

Factual Background of Shankari Prasad Case

• After India gained independence, the government initiated rural reforms to enhance economic and social progress, including land redistribution among various landowners.
• Legal disputes arose when some individuals contested these reforms, citing infringement of their property rights.
• The Allahabad and Bhopal High Courts supported the reforms, but the Patna High Court deemed the Bihar Land Reforms Act of 1950 unconstitutional under Article 13(2) of the Indian Constitution.
• This decision sparked political discord, with Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru expressing disappointment and criticizing the perceived misuse of the constitution by lawyers.

Key Events in Shankari Prasad Case

• To eradicate the zamindari system, several state legislatures introduced the Zamindari Abolition Act, aiming to redistribute land from wealthy zamindars to local residents.
• Challenges to the legality of the law arose, with the Patna High Court ruling against it while the Allahabad and Nagpur High Courts upheld its validity.
• In response to the legal disputes, the Union Parliament passed the Constitution (First Amendment) Act of 1951, which validated the Zamindari Abolition Laws and imposed restrictions on the Fundamental Right to Property.
• New Articles 31A and 31B were added to the Constitution to legitimize the contested measures.
• Subsequently, zamindars filed petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenging the constitutionality of the Amendment Act before the Supreme Court.

Significance of the Shankari Prasad Case

• The Shankari Prasad Case marked a crucial legal juncture in post-independence India, where constitutional amendments were introduced to uphold land reforms amidst legal challenges.
• It underscored the balance between property rights and the state's authority to implement socio-economic reforms, setting a precedent for legislative interventions to support progressive changes.

Issues Raised

• Whether the First Amendment Act passed by Parliament was unconstitutional?
• Did the Parliament have the authority to amend Fundamental Rights?
• Did the term 'law' in Article 13(2) include the Constituent laws?

Appellant's Arguments

• The legal representative in the case of Shankari Prasad versus the Union of India contended that only the two houses of Parliament hold the authority to amend the constitution, as designated. Hence, the provisional Parliament did not possess the legal mandate to carry out such amendments.
• Moreover, it was argued that Article 368 stands as a comprehensive provision in itself and does not permit any modifications to a bill once it has been introduced in the House. Considering that amendments were incorporated into the bill during its passage, it cannot be deemed as having followed the stipulated procedure under Article 368.
• Finally, the legal counsel in the Shankari Prasad Case emphasized that matters related to land come under List 2 of the seventh schedule, falling under the jurisdiction of the State Legislature. Consequently, the Parliament did not have the authority to legislate on issues concerning land.

Respondents Arguments

• According to the attorney representing the respondent in the Shankari Prasad Case, the Constitution provides for three types 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 need 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 involves the Parliament comprising both houses and the President, is granted the authority to make amendments.
• In the Shankari Prasad Case, the counsel contended that agreeing with the petitioner's argument that the reference to the "two houses" in Article 368 excludes the provisional parliament could weaken the essence of Article 379.
• Lastly, in Shankari Prasad vs Union of India, the counsel stressed that the petitioner's argument suggesting that Article 368 should not be seen as a self-contained provision is inaccurate. They highlighted certain procedural discrepancies in how a bill is introduced and passed in each House of Parliament, as well as how the President's assent is obtained.

Judgement in Shankari Prasad Case

• The Constitution (First Amendment) Act of 1951 brought in Articles 31A and 31B to the Indian Constitution, which, according to the court ruling, did not violate the Constitution.
• The provisional Parliament had the authority to amend the Constitution under Article 368, with "two Houses" in Article 368 referring to both Houses of Parliament and the President collectively, not separately.
• In the Shankari Prasad Case, it was clarified that the powers granted to Parliament under the Constitution are not limited to what the provisional Parliament, with a single chamber, can do. This includes the power to amend the Constitution as outlined in Article 368.
• The Constitution (Removal of Difficulties) Order No. 2 issued by the President on January 26, 1950, adjusting Article 368 terms, was deemed constitutional under Article 391 powers, without the need to wait for provisional Parliament action as per Article 392.
• Contrary to the belief that Article 368's procedure is all-encompassing and any amendments post-introduction of a Bill render the Amendment Act invalid, the court clarified this misconception.
• In the context of Article 13, the court distinguished between ordinary legislative laws and constitutional laws made through constituent power, stating that Article 13(2) does not apply to amendments under Article 368.
• Articles 31A and 31B did not restrict the High Court's authority under Article 226 or the Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Articles 132 and 136 related to writs for upholding rights granted by Part III of the Constitution, albeit excluding certain cases from Part III.
• Articles 31A and 31B were deemed valid as they pertain to land matters falling under the State List, and only Parliament had the jurisdiction to enact such constitutional amendments.

These points from the Shankari Prasad Case decision shed light on the interpretation and application of constitutional provisions regarding amendments and parliamentary powers.

Issue-Wise Judgement

• First Amendment Act Validity: The Supreme Court did not find the First Amendment Act passed by Parliament to be unconstitutional. This implies that the Act was considered legally valid by the highest judicial authority in the country.
• Parliament's Authority to Amend Fundamental Rights: According to Article 368, Parliament possesses the authority to amend Fundamental Rights. This means that the legislative body has the power to make changes to these core rights through the specified constitutional process.
• Interpretation of 'Law' in Article 13(2): The term 'law' mentioned in Article 13(2) does not encompass Constituent laws. This indicates that amendments made to the Constitution through the constituent power are not considered within the scope of 'law' as defined in this specific provision.

Conclusion

• 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 contested the amendment, which introduced Articles 31A and 31B to the Indian Constitution, contending that it violated the fundamental right to property enshrined in Article 19(1)(f).
• However, the Supreme Court in the Shankari Prasad Case ruled that Parliament possessed the authority to amend the Constitution, including fundamental rights, under Article 368. The Court emphasized the broad amending power of Parliament, affirming its ability to modify any aspect of the Constitution, including fundamental rights. The Shankari Prasad Case established the principle that Parliament held the jurisdiction to amend fundamental rights through constitutional amendments.