1. What is the Shankari Prasad vs. Union of India Case all about?
The Shankari Prasad vs. Union of India case in 1951 is a landmark judgement that addressed the issue of the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution, particularly with respect to fundamental rights. The case examined the validity of the First Amendment to the Indian Constitution, which curtailed the right to property by inserting Articles 31A and 31B.
2. Facts of the Shankari Prasad vs. Union of India Case Relevant for UPSC
- Parties Involved:
- Shankari Prasad (petitioner)
- Union of India (respondent)
- Legal Questions:
- Whether Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution in a manner that affects fundamental rights.
- Whether the First Amendment, which introduced Articles 31A and 31B and placed certain agrarian reforms beyond the scope of judicial review, was constitutionally valid.
- Noteworthy Events:
- The First Amendment Act, 1951, was passed by Parliament to address issues related to land reforms and protect such reforms from being challenged in courts on the grounds of violation of fundamental rights.
- Shankari Prasad challenged the validity of the amendment, arguing that Parliament did not have the authority to amend the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
3. What are the Major Judgements/Changes Brought by Shankari Prasad vs. Union of India Case?
The Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgement that clarified the scope of Parliament’s amending power:
- The Court held that Parliament has the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including the fundamental rights, under Article 368. The term “law” in Article 13(2) does not include a constitutional amendment passed under Article 368.
- It ruled that the First Amendment was constitutionally valid, as it was passed in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Article 368 and did not contravene any provisions of the Constitution.
- The judgement emphasized that constitutional amendments are not subject to the limitations imposed by Article 13(2), which prohibits the state from making any laws that take away or abridge fundamental rights.
4. What was the Impact of Shankari Prasad vs. Union of India Case on Indian Constitution?
- Validation of Parliamentary Power to Amend: The judgement validated the extensive power of Parliament to amend the Constitution, including provisions related to fundamental rights.
- Clarification of Amendment vs. Law: It clarified the distinction between a “law” under Article 13(2) and a “constitutional amendment” under Article 368, establishing that constitutional amendments are not constrained by Article 13(2).
- Foundation for Future Amendments: The ruling laid the foundation for future amendments to the Constitution, including those affecting fundamental rights, and set a precedent for the interpretation of Article 368.
5. Was this Shankari Prasad vs. Union of India Case Challenged/Reversed in Future?
The principles established in the Shankari Prasad case were revisited and somewhat modified by later judgements, notably the Golaknath vs. State of Punjab (1967) case, which restricted Parliament’s power to amend fundamental rights, and the Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973) case, which introduced the doctrine of the basic structure of the Constitution. However, the basic premise that Parliament can amend the Constitution under Article 368 was upheld.
6. Doctrines/Theories/New Concepts
- Doctrine of Parliamentary Supremacy in Amendments: The case established that Parliament has the supreme authority to amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights, under Article 368.
- Distinction between Law and Amendment: The judgement clarified that constitutional amendments are distinct from ordinary laws and are not subject to the limitations of Article 13(2).
- Foundation for Judicial Review of Amendments: Although later modified, this case set the stage for the ongoing judicial review and interpretation of constitutional amendments, contributing to the evolution of the doctrine of the basic structure of the Constitution.