Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India
Commonly called:
Shankari Prasad case.
Supreme Court of India.
The case arose soon after the Constitution came into force.
Parliament had enacted the:
Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951.
The amendment was challenged before the Supreme Court.
The First Amendment was enacted largely to protect:
It inserted/modified important constitutional provisions including:
Articles 31A and 31B
and:
Ninth Schedule.
The petitioners argued that:
The First Amendment affected Fundamental Rights,
especially:
Right to Property
as it then existed under the Constitution.
Could Parliament:
Amend Fundamental Rights
through the procedure under:
Article 368?
Article 13 provides that:
Laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are void to the extent of inconsistency.
The petitioners argued that:
A constitutional amendment is also "law" under Article 13.
Therefore:
Parliament could not use amendment power to abridge Fundamental Rights.
The Supreme Court had to distinguish between:
Ordinary legislative power
and:
Constitutional amending power.
The Supreme Court upheld:
Parliament's power to amend the Constitution,
including:
Fundamental Rights.
The Court held that:
A constitutional amendment made under Article 368 is not "law" within the meaning of Article 13(2).
The Court therefore treated:
Article 13
as applying to:
Ordinary laws,
but not to:
Constitutional amendments enacted under Article 368.
This distinction became the heart of the judgment.
Parliament:
Cannot violate Fundamental Rights.
Parliament, acting under:
Article 368,
could:
Amend Fundamental Rights.
The Court viewed Parliament's power under Article 368 as:
Constituent/amending power,
rather than ordinary:
Legislative power.
If amendment power were treated as ordinary legislation:
Article 13
could potentially prevent constitutional amendment whenever Fundamental Rights were affected.
The Court rejected that approach.
The case confirmed:
Parliament's amendment power is constitutionally derived.
It is not the same as:
Ordinary law-making power.
The judgment indirectly strengthened Parliament's ability to:
Protect land reform legislation
against Fundamental Rights challenges.
Independent India faced:
The First Amendment introduced:
Article 31A.
It protected certain laws relating to:
The First Amendment also inserted:
Article 31B.
Article 31B is linked to the:
Ninth Schedule.
Laws placed in the Ninth Schedule received constitutional protection from challenge on certain Fundamental Rights grounds under the original framework.
The original objective was:
Protecting land reform and other specified legislation
from being invalidated through Fundamental Rights litigation.
The original understanding of Ninth Schedule protection later changed.
In:
I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2007,
the Supreme Court held that:
Post-Kesavananda additions to the Ninth Schedule can be reviewed if they damage the Basic Structure.
The 1951 judgment:
Predated the Basic Structure Doctrine.
Therefore:
It did not impose a Basic Structure limitation on constitutional amendments.
Shankari Prasad's broad approach was later reconsidered through:
Golaknath v. State of Punjab, 1967.
The Supreme Court took a different approach and held that:
Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights using the constitutional amendment process as then understood.
Parliament responded through:
24th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971.
The 24th Amendment strengthened:
Parliament's power to amend the Constitution.
It inserted:
Article 13(4).
It also strengthened:
Article 368.
Provides that:
Nothing in Article 13 shall apply to constitutional amendments made under Article 368.
No.
The next major development was:
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, 1973.
The Supreme Court held:
Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution,
but:
Cannot alter or destroy the Basic Structure.
Broad amendment power.
Fundamental Rights protected from amendment.
Parliamentary amendment power strengthened.
Amendment power retained but limited by Basic Structure.
The case represents the:
First major Supreme Court interpretation of Parliament's constitutional amendment power.
The Court exercised:
Judicial review
while examining:
The constitutional validity of the First Amendment.
Shankari Prasad:
✅ Recognised judicial power to examine constitutional validity.
✅ Upheld amendment power.
❌ Did not establish unlimited judicial deference to Parliament forever.
The case established the early position:
Fundamental Rights could be amended.
After Kesavananda:
Fundamental Rights can be amended,
but:
Their essential constitutional identity cannot be destroyed if it forms part of the Basic Structure.
Subject to:
Article 13.
Governed by:
Article 368.
Constitutional amendments are subject to:
Basic Structure review.
The case reflects the early judicial understanding that:
Parliament derives its amendment power from the Constitution.
Therefore:
The Constitution remains supreme.
India does not follow:
Absolute parliamentary sovereignty.
Even though Parliament has broad powers:
Constitutional limits apply.
Marbury principle:
Constitution prevails over ordinary legislation.
Shankari Prasad:
Constitutional amendments require a separate analysis because they are exercises of constituent/amending power.
The Shankari Prasad case is important in understanding:
Evolution of judicial review.
Amendment power broadly upheld.
Basic Structure limitation developed.
It connects:
Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India.
1951.
First Constitutional Amendment, 1951.
Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights.
Upheld amendment power.
Constitutional amendment not treated as "law" for Article 13.
Source of constitutional amendment procedure.
Articles 31A and 31B.
Inserted by First Amendment.
Golaknath, 1967.
Kesavananda Bharati, 1973.
Shankari Prasad held that Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights.
❌ Wrong.
It held:
Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights.
The judgment established the Basic Structure Doctrine.
❌ Wrong.
Basic Structure:
Kesavananda Bharati, 1973.
The First Amendment was struck down by the Court.
❌ Wrong.
The Court:
Upheld it.
Article 13 automatically invalidates constitutional amendments.
❌ Wrong under the Shankari Prasad approach.
The Court held:
Constitutional amendments under Article 368 are not "law" under Article 13.
The First Amendment created the Ninth Schedule through Article 32.
❌ Wrong.
It inserted:
Article 31B
and:
Ninth Schedule.
Shankari Prasad held that Parliament is sovereign.
❌ Wrong.
It recognised:
Constitutional amendment power,
not:
Unlimited parliamentary sovereignty.
The case concerned the 42nd Amendment.
❌ Wrong.
It concerned:
First Amendment, 1951.
The judgment came after Golaknath.
❌ Wrong.
Sequence:
Shankari Prasad, 1951
→
Golaknath, 1967.
The 24th Amendment confirmed the original Shankari Prasad position without any intervening conflict.
❌ Incorrect.
Golaknath had taken a contrary position in 1967.
The 24th Amendment was a:
Parliamentary response to Golaknath.
Fundamental Rights are completely unamendable today.
❌ Wrong.
They can be amended, subject to:
Basic Structure limitation.
Constitution came into force.
First Amendment.
→ Shankari Prasad.
Golaknath.
24th Amendment.
Kesavananda Bharati.
42nd Amendment.
Minerva Mills.
I.R. Coelho.
First Amendment → Shankari Prasad → Golaknath → 24th Amendment → Kesavananda → Minerva Mills.
| Shankari Prasad, 1951 | Golaknath, 1967 |
|---|---|
| Parliament can amend FR | Parliament cannot amend FR as then understood |
| Article 13 does not apply to amendments | Amendment treated differently for FR protection |
| Broad amendment power | Restricted amendment power |
| First stage | Later reversal |
| Shankari Prasad | Kesavananda |
|---|---|
| 1951 | 1973 |
| Broad amendment power | Broad but limited |
| No Basic Structure doctrine | Basic Structure doctrine |
| FR can be amended | FR can be amended subject to Basic Structure |
The 24th Amendment:
Restored and strengthened the parliamentary amendment power
after:
Golaknath.
Today:
Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights.
But:
It cannot destroy the Basic Structure.
Article 13 remains crucial for:
Ordinary legislation affecting Fundamental Rights.
But:
Constitutional amendments under Article 368 are assessed under the Basic Structure doctrine rather than treated simply as ordinary "law" under Article 13.
Article 13 + Fundamental Rights + Constitution.
Article 368 + Basic Structure.
→ Defined early scope of amendment power.
→ Important stage in evolution of judicial review.
→ Balanced Parliament's role with constitutional supremacy.
→ Connected constitutional amendment with land reform/social transformation.
The broad approach of Shankari Prasad could potentially:
Allow Parliament to amend important rights without a substantive limitation.
The Basic Structure Doctrine provided:
A constitutional safeguard against destructive amendments.
Do not treat Shankari Prasad as simply:
"Court allowed Parliament unlimited power."
Better formulation:
The Court recognised a broad constitutional amending power, while the later Basic Structure doctrine supplied a substantive limitation.
Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951) was the first major Supreme Court judgment on Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights. Arising from the challenge to the First Constitutional Amendment, it established an early broad interpretation of Parliament's constituent power under Article 368.
Shankari Prasad → Golaknath → 24th Amendment → Kesavananda → Minerva Mills.
Parliament may amend Fundamental Rights but:
Cannot destroy Basic Structure.
Shankari Prasad marks the starting point of India's constitutional amendment jurisprudence. Its broad conception of Parliament's amending power was later refined into the present doctrine of amendability subject to constitutional identity and Basic Structure.
