Shankari Prasad vs. Union of India, 1951

• To cancel the zamindari framework pervasive all over India, some state councils took certain measures for agrarian changes in especially Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh by establishing Zamindari Abolition Act. Under such enactment tremendous property of land that lay with rich zamindars was to be and rearrange them among the inhabitants. Certain Zamindars, feeling themselves distressed, tested the demonstration in the courts of law as being illegal and violative of their Fundamental Right for example Right to Property gave on them by Part III of the Constitution.
• The High Court at Patna held that the Act passed in Bihar was unlawful while the high court at Allahabad in Uttar Pradesh and high court at Nagpur in Madhya Pradesh maintained the legitimacy of the enactment in the states. Advances from those choices and petitions documented by some different zamindars in these courts were forthcoming. Amidst it, Union Parliament, so as to put an end all suits, presented a Bill to change the Constitution.
• The Bill, subsequent to going through different changes, was passed by the necessary dominant part as the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951. The Amendment Act was adequate as approving the Zamindari Abolition Laws and restricting the Fundamental Right to Property.
• New Articles 31A and 31B were remembered for the Constitution to approve the denounced measures.
• As a response, the zamindars brought the current petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution recording a writ request under the watchful eye of the Supreme Court testing the Amendment Act, expressing it as illegal and void.

1. Whether or not the First Amendment Act encroaches upon the Fundamental Rights by adding certain provisions?
2. Whether or not the First Amendment Act is ultra virus the Constitution of India?
3. Whether or not the term ‘law’ contained in Article 13 of the Constitution of India includes constitutional amendments?

Plantiff Argument:-

The Counsel for the Petitioner ardently argued that the First Amendment Act was an attack on the Fundamental Rights as given in the Constitution of India and was abrogating Article 13 (2) of the Indian Constitution which read “The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void.” 

Respondent Argument:- 

1. The respondent argue that the reference to the two houses mentioned in Article 368 makes it irrelevant to provisional parliament, if accepted, can take away the very purpose of Article 379.
2. They stated that the word ‘law’ in Article 13[2] includes only ordinary law and not the constitutional amendments. By drawing a clear line of distinction between the law, it becomes evident that Article 13[2] does not affect the amendment made under Article 368. 

JUDGMENT :-

The Judgment was communicated by Hon’ble Judge M Patanjali Sastri. 

• The Supreme Court of India in this case view that the power of the Parliament, under Article 368, has the power to amend part III of the Constitution of India, Fundamental Rights that are guaranteed to the people. Also, it was held that Article 31A and Article 31B, which was first inserted by the 1st Constitutional Amendment Act, were deemed to be valid, and, therefore not ultra vires of the Constitution of India.
• It was also stated by the Supreme Court of India that the term ‘law’ will include only ordinary laws, but it will not include any Constitutional Amendment that are made in the exercise of certain Constitutional power.
• The Supreme Court applied the principle of harmonic construction as there is a disagreement between Article 368 and Article 13. The provisions of constitution should be interpreted in a manner that they must agree with each other and there must be harmony among them. 

Hence, the power of amendment given under Article 368 of the Constitution of India is unlimited. However, the power of judicial review guaranteed under Article 13 is not unlimited. It can be applied only on normal legislations, but it cannot be applied in Constitutional Amendments.

• The Supreme Court ruled that the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution under Article 368 also includes the power to amend Fundamental Rights.
• The word ‘law’ in Article 13 includes only ordinary laws and not the constitutional amendment acts (constituent laws).
• Therefore, the Parliament can abridge or take away any of the Fundamental Rights by enacting a constitutional amendment act and such a law will not be void under Article 13.