Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v Union of India

*Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v Union of India* (1951) was the first major case in which the Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether Parliament has the power to amend the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. The Court unanimously held that it does — and that the word "law" in Article 13(2) does not include a constitutional amendment made under Article 368. This ruling opened the way for Parliament to enact agrarian reform legislation and set the stage for decades of constitutional confrontation between the judiciary and the legislature.

Background & Facts

In the immediate post-Independence years, several states enacted zamindari abolition laws to redistribute feudal landholdings to landless peasants. Zamindars (large landowners) challenged these laws as violations of their fundamental right to property under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31 of the Constitution. Courts, including High Courts, struck down some of these laws on constitutional grounds, creating a significant barrier to land reform.

To overcome these judicial obstacles, Parliament enacted the **First Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951**. This amendment, among other things:

- Inserted Article 31A, which protected laws providing for the acquisition of estates by the State from being challenged on the ground that they violated rights under Articles 14 or 19.

- Inserted Article 31B, which placed specified laws in the Ninth Schedule, immunising them from judicial challenge on the ground of violation of fundamental rights.

- Added a new Article 19(6) to widen the permissible restrictions on the right to practise a profession.

Shankari Prasad Singh Deo, a zamindar in Orissa, challenged the First Amendment, arguing that it abridged fundamental rights and was therefore void under Article 13(2), which declares that the State shall not make any law that takes away or abridges fundamental rights. The zamindars contended that a constitutional amendment was "law" within the meaning of Article 13(2).

Legal Issues

1. Does the word "law" in Article 13(2) include a constitutional amendment enacted under Article 368?

2. Does Parliament, in its constituent capacity under Article 368, have the power to amend fundamental rights (Part III)?

3. Are Articles 31A and 31B, inserted by the First Amendment, constitutionally valid?

Arguments

**Petitioner's Contentions:**

The zamindars argued that Article 13(2) uses the word "law" without qualification, and a constitutional amendment is also a form of law made by Parliament. Since the First Amendment abridged the right to property (a fundamental right), it violated Article 13(2) and was void. They further argued that fundamental rights are natural and inviolable rights that Parliament cannot take away, even through constitutional amendment.

**Respondent's Contentions:**

The Union of India argued that Article 368 confers a separate constituent power on Parliament, distinct from its ordinary legislative power. A constitutional amendment is not "ordinary law" made under Article 245 or 246; it is an exercise of constituent power in strict compliance with the special procedure prescribed by Article 368 (special majority, possible ratification by states). The word "law" in Article 13(2) refers to ordinary legislation, not constitutional amendments. Parliament acting as a constituent assembly cannot be bound by the very Constitution it is amending.

Judgment & Reasoning

The five-judge Constitution Bench unanimously upheld the First Constitutional Amendment and rejected the zamindars' challenge.

**1. "Law" in Article 13 Does Not Include Constitutional Amendments:** The Court held that the word "law" in Article 13(2) must be understood in its ordinary legislative sense — that is, law enacted by Parliament or state legislatures under ordinary legislative power. It does not encompass a constitutional amendment made under the special procedure of Article 368. Articles 13 and 368 operate in separate domains.

**2. Constituent Power is Distinct from Legislative Power:** Article 368 confers a constituent power — a power to constitute or re-constitute the fundamental law of the land. This is qualitatively different from the legislative power to make ordinary laws. When Parliament acts under Article 368, it acts as a constituent authority, not as an ordinary legislature.

**3. No Limitation on Amending Fundamental Rights:** The Court found no language in the Constitution that excluded fundamental rights from the scope of the amending power. The framers, it was held, did not intend to render Part III unamendable. Parliament may therefore amend any provision of the Constitution, including fundamental rights, provided it follows the procedure prescribed in Article 368.

**4. Articles 31A and 31B Upheld:** Articles 31A and 31B, being validly inserted by the First Amendment, were held to be constitutionally valid. The Ninth Schedule was constitutionally competent, and the land reform laws placed therein were immunised from challenge.

Significance

**Opening the Path for Land Reforms:** By upholding the First Amendment and the Ninth Schedule, the Court enabled the implementation of zamindari abolition and land redistribution across India — a cornerstone of post-Independence social and economic policy.

**First Round of the Fundamental Rights vs. Amendment Power Battle:** *Shankari Prasad* was the opening salvo in a constitutional debate that would continue through *Sajjan Singh v State of Rajasthan* (1965), *Golaknath v State of Punjab* (1967) — which reversed *Shankari Prasad* — and ultimately *Kesavananda Bharati* (1973), which struck a middle ground.

**Ninth Schedule Jurisprudence:** The Ninth Schedule immunity was later limited in *I.R. Coelho v State of Tamil Nadu* (2007), where the Supreme Court held that laws inserted into the Ninth Schedule after *Kesavananda Bharati* (24 April 1973) can be judicially reviewed if they violate the basic structure.

**Precedent Value:** While the specific holding (unlimited power to amend fundamental rights) was overruled in *Golaknath* and then partially restored by *Kesavananda Bharati* in modified form, *Shankari Prasad* remains important as the foundational case that first addressed the relationship between ordinary legislative power and constituent power.

Key Takeaways

- The word "law" in Article 13(2) does not include a constitutional amendment — they operate under different powers.

- Parliament, acting under Article 368, exercises constituent power that is separate from and superior to ordinary legislative power.

- In 1951, the Court held Parliament could amend fundamental rights — this was later reversed by *Golaknath* (1967) and then modified by *Kesavananda Bharati* (1973).

- The First Constitutional Amendment and the Ninth Schedule were upheld, clearing the path for zamindari abolition and land reforms.

- The case is the starting point of India's most important and enduring constitutional controversy about the scope of the amending power.

---

*This article is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal matters, please consult a qualified advocate.*