Case Analysis: Shankari Prasad v/s Union Of India
Facts Of Cases:
- 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.
- The Supreme court precluded that the ability to alter the Constitution under Article 368 additionally incorporated the ability to correct basic rights and law in Article 13(2) incorporates just a common law made in exercise of the administrative powers and does exclude sacred revision which is made in exercise of constituent forces. In this way, a sacred revision will be substantial regardless of whether it compresses or takes any of the crucial rights.
- The court applies the standard of Harmonic Construction as there is a contention between article 368 and article 13. The arrangements of constitution ought to be deciphered in a way that they dont struggle with one another and there is concordance between them.
- In this manner, the court maintained the legitimacy of first Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 1951 and the petitions were excused with costs.
Implications Of Judgement
- Fundamental rights, the basic human rights are enforceable. These fundamental rights are protected by the court of law by issuing writs.
- Though under Article 352 and 356, the fundamental rights or some parts of them can be suspended during emergency yet they can be amended by Parliament.
- The constitutional validity of first amendment (1951), which curtailed the right to property, was challenged.
- The SC ruled out that the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 also included the power to amend fundamental rights and that the word law in Article 13 (8) includes only an ordinary law made in exercise of the legislative powers and does not include Constitutional amendment which is made in exercise of constituent power. Therefore, a Constitutional amendment will be valid even if it abridges or takes any of the fundamental rights.