SHANKARI PRASAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

 

     CASE COMMENTARY [ SHANKARI PRASAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA ].

 

CASE NAME — SHANKARI PRASAD VS. UNION OF INDIA

CITATION — 1951 AIR 458, 1952 SCR 89

JUDGEMENT DATED — 5 October, 1951

BENCH— Kania, Hiralal J. (Cj), Sastri, M. Patanjali, Mukherjea, B.K., Das, Sudhi Ranjan, Aiyar, N. Chandrasekhara

 

INTRODUCTION-- The Doctrine of Basic Structure evolved through series of verdicts in India, one such case was of Shankari Prasad Vs. Union of India. This case was result of the ongoing struggles between the judiciary for sovereignty in independent India. Under this case question was raised of whether the fundamental rights can be amended under Article 368 by the parliament or not. Herein, the validity of the First Amendment of the Constitution 1951 was also challenged which curtailed the Fundamental Right to Property under Article 31.The major augment that was brought forward was that Article 13 prohibits the enactment of law abridging the Fundamental Right.  The conflict between the amending power of the Parliament and the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution of India could be regarded as one of the longest, but the most crucial ones in the history of Independent India. This conflict was instigated due to an underlying battle between Article 13 and Article 368 as well. The aforementioned conflict, that lasted for decades and almost seemed interminable at one point, was characterized by a tussle between the Judiciary and the Legislature. Although the said tussle was quite extensive, it created an everlasting effect on the Indian legal system. The decade’s long struggle for the co-existence of the Fundamental Rights and the amending power of the Parliament plays a very significant role while studying the Constitution of India as it primarily gave impetus to the concept of ‘Basic structure of the Constitution’, or the ‘Basic Structure Doctrine’ as some like to call it. The Basic Structure Doctrine can be studied with the help of certain landmark cases, especially Shankari Prasad Vs Union of India  (hereinafter referred to as “Shankari Prasad’s Case”), Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan  (hereinafter referred to as “Sajjan Singh’s Case”), I. C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab  ( hereinafter referred to as “Golaknath’s Case”) and Kesavananda Bharti v. the State of Kerela  (hereinafter referred to as “Kesavanada Bharti’s Case”). In this article, we will be doing a thorough study of Shankari Prasad Case and alongside understanding the Zamindari System and the infamous constitutional amendment that sparked the debate around the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution of India.

FACTS OF THE CASE --  The move for the abolishment of the Zamindari System is what triggered Shankari Prasad Case. Various State governments were taking efforts to ban the then prevailing Zamindari System, this led to reallocation of the land that was held by the Zamindars. As a result, this created unrest amongst the affluent Zamindars. They were clearly negatively impacted by this move. Therefore, they decided to employ legal means and challenge the new laws that were prohibiting and creating hurdles in the Zamindari system. They argued that this would violate their Fundamental Right of ‘Right to Property’ which was formerly provided in Part III of the Constitution and was regarded as a Fundamental Right. Since the issue revolving around the abolishment of the Zamindari System was stirred due to the First Amendment Act, this amendment was brought into question as well.

ISSUES RAISED IN THIS CASE—  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 vires the Constitution of India?

3. Whether or not the term ‘law’ contained in Article 13 of the Constitution of India includes constitutional amendments?

CONTENTION--  The debate around the amending power of the Parliament and its conflict with Fundamental Rights was ignited in Shankari Prasad Case. Shankari Prasad case was decided in 1951 and was triggered by certain land reforms like the abolishment of the Zamindari system by the State Governments. Although this move was challenged in Court, it was further strengthened by the First Amendment Act which considerably restricted the Right to Property. Therefore, the issue before the Apex Court primarily revolved around the constitutional validity of the First Amendment Act. Since it was indefinite whether ‘law’ as mentioned in Article 13 (2) of the Constitution of India involved the amendments made by the Parliament, that too was brought into question.

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 Constitution of India 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.” The aforementioned section clearly substantiates the petitioner’s underlying argument i.e., the parliament cannot create a law that sweeps away the Fundamental Rights as provided in Part III of the Constitution of India. In spite of Petitioner’s meticulous arguments, the Court expressed its opinion by stating “We find it, however, difficult, in the absence of a clear indication to the contrary, to suppose that they also intended to make those rights immune from the constitutional amendment.”

The Supreme Court of India also remarked that “Had it been intended to save the fundamental rights from the operation of that provision, it would have been perfectly easy to make that intention clear by adding a proviso to that effect.” Further, the Apex Court opined that ‘law’ as provided in Article 13 (2) only includes rules or regulations owing to the exercise of ordinary legislative power. The definition of law could not be widened or interpreted to include Constitutional amendments.  Not only were the powers of the Parliament to amend the Constitution, including Fundamental were upheld, but also the validity of the land reforms were recognized. Nonetheless, the judgement of the court in Shankari Prasad’s case was challenged and brought forth in future cases concerning the Doctrine of Basic Structure.

Verdict of the Supreme Court in Shankari Prasad Vs Union Of India -- This landmark case was heard by a five judges bench comprising of Justice M. Patanjali Sastri, B.K. Mukherjea, Sudhi Ranjan Das, N. Chandrasekhara Aiyar and Chief Justice Hiralal Kania.  In the opinion of the Apex Court, the First Amendment Act or the changes brought about by it were not unconstitutional. Patanjali Shastri J., distinguished between legislative power and constituent power. The learned Judge stated that “law” as provided in Article 13 failed to include the Constitutional Amendment that is made in the exercise of constituent power and held that fundamental rights were not outside the scope of amending power. Although the petitioners contended that ‘law’ contained in Article 13 (2) of the Constitution of India includes constitutional amendments, the Supreme Court disregarded their contention.  The Apex Court held that Article 368 includes the power to amend the Constitution, not excluding the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III. The Court stated that although a constitutional amendment is a law, there is a clear demarcation between legislative and constituent power. Furthermore, it was stated that the term ‘law’ as provided in Article 13 (2) includes ordinary law made in the exercise of certain legislative power and not constitutional amendments that are made in the exercise of certain constitutional power. Article 31 A and Article B, introduced by the First Amendment Act were deemed to be valid and were, therefore, not ultra vires the Constitution of India.

CONCLUSION-- Shankari Prasad’s case was truly a landmark judgement as it helped evolve the Basic Structure Doctrine. Although the Apex Court failed to uphold Fundamental Rights, it played an instrumental role in the establishment of the Basic Structure Doctrine. This case highlighted one of the most debated topics related to the Indian Constitution i.e., the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution of India, especially Fundamental Rights. This issue was again raised in Golaknath’s case where the Supreme Court overruled its judgement in Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh’s Case and held that the Parliament had no power to amend Part III of the Constitution, that contained the Fundamental Right, leaving no power with the Parliament to abrogate the fundamental rights. Despite the sound judgement rendered in Golaknath’s Case, the Supreme Court took a different stance in Kesavanada Bharti’s case which established the Basic Structure Doctrine. In Kesavananda Bharti’s Case the Court held that although the power to amend the Constitution was present, the basic structure of the Constitution could not be altered. Notwithstanding that, the minority judges in Kesavanada Bharti’s Case held that Fundamental Rights cannot be amended. The reiteration of the Basic Structure Doctrine can be observed in The Doctrine of Basic Structure was further reiterated by the Supreme Court of India in several judgements which include other landmark cases like Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain, Minerva Mills v. Union of India, Waman Rao v. Union of India, etc.