Shankari Prasad v/s Union of India

 Shankari Prasad v/s Union of India

The Basic Structure Doctrine arose in India as a result of a series of court decisions, one of which was Shankari Prasad vs. Union of India. This case arose from the continuous struggle for sovereignty in independent India between the judiciary and the executive. In this case, the topic of whether basic rights can be changed by parliament under Article 368 was raised.

The legitimacy of the First Amendment to the Constitution of 1951, which limited the Fundamental Right to Property under Article 31, was also questioned in this case. The main point raised was that Article 13 bans the introduction of legislation that restricts fundamental rights.

Points to be noted:

1) In this case, the Supreme Court gave Parliament complete power to modify the Constitution.

2) The court ruled that the phrase "law" in Article 13 refers to rules or regulations enacted under regular legislative authority, not amendments to the Constitution enacted under Article 368's constituent power.

3) Parliament, according to this ruling, has the authority to change any aspect of the Constitution, including fundamental rights.

4) Article 13 of the original constitution stated that the state "must not create any law that takes away or abridges the rights granted to people in Part III," and that any law passed in violation of this article would be declared void to the degree of the violation. As a result, the parliament cannot modify the constitution in a way that denies citizens their fundamental rights. The Supreme Court put this principle to the test in the case of Shankari Prasad vs Union of India.

5) It was said here that an alteration (in this example, an amendment to Articles 31A and 31B) that takes away individuals' fundamental rights is not permitted by Article 13. They maintained that parliament is part of the state, and constitutional amendments are part of the law.

6) It was decided that the law referred to in Article 13 is regular law enacted under legislative authority. As a result, the parliament has the authority to change the constitution.

7) Because there is a disagreement between Article 368 and Article 13, the Supreme Court used the principle of harmonious construction. The articles of the constitution should be read in such a way that they do not contradict one another and are in harmony.

Facts of the case:

1) To abolish the zamindari system, which is prevalent throughout India, certain state councils, particularly in Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, and Madhya Pradesh, established the Zamindari Abolition Act.

2) Under such an enactment, vast land holdings held by wealthy zamindars were to be re-allocated among the people. Distressed, several Zamindars took the rally to court, claiming it was illegal and infringing on their fundamental rights, such as the right to property granted to them by Part III of the Constitution.

3) The High Court in Patna ruled that the Bihar Act was unconstitutional, whereas the high court’s in Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh, and Nagpur, Madhya Pradesh upheld the validity of the state legislation.

4) Advances from those decisions, as well as petitions filed in these courts by various zamindars, were imminent. During this time, the Union Parliament introduced a Bill to alter the Constitution in order to put an end to all lawsuits.

5) Following further revisions, the bill was passed by the requisite majority as the Constitution (First Amendment) Act of 1951.

6) As far as endorsing the Zamindari Abolition Laws and curtailing the Fundamental Right to Property, the Amendment Act was sufficient.

7) Articles 31A and 31B of the Constitution were recalled in order for the condemned measures to be approved.

8) As a result, the zamindars filed the present petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution, requesting a writ from the Supreme Court to test the Amendment Act, declaring it unconstitutional and illegal.

Verdict:

1) The Supreme Court ruled that the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 did not include the power to correct fundamental rights, and that Article 13(2) only includes common law made in the exercise of administrative powers and does not include sacred revision made in the exercise of constituent powers. In this approach, a sacred change will be significant regardless of whether it compresses or eliminates any key rights.

2) Because there is a conflict between article 368 and article 13, the court uses the Harmonic Construction standard. The constitution's arrangements should be deciphered in such a way that they don't conflict with one another and are in sync.

3) The court upheld the constitutionality of the first Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 1951, and the petitions were dismissed with costs.

Implications of Judgment

1) Fundamental rights, or fundamental human rights, are legally enforceable. The court of law protects these fundamental rights by issuing writs.

2) Although fundamental rights can be suspended or parts of them can be suspended during an emergency under Article 352 and 356, they can also be changed by Parliament.

3) The constitutionality of the first amendment (1951), which limited the right to property, was called into question.

4) The Supreme Court ruled that the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 did not include the power to amend fundamental rights, and that the term "law" in Article 13 (8) refers only to ordinary laws enacted under legislative authority, not to constitutional amendments enacted under constituent authority. As a result, a constitutional amendment will be lawful even if it restricts or eliminates any fundamental rights.