Shankari Prasad vs Union of India (1951): Can Parliament Amend Fundamental Rights?

1. The Concept: Is a Constitutional Amendment a "Law"?

First, let us understand the basic meaning. Article 13(2) of the Constitution says: the State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges Fundamental Rights, and any law that does so is void. Shankari Prasad Singh Deo vs. Union of India (1951) asked one sharp question: does the word "law" in Article 13(2) include a constitutional amendment passed under Article 368? This was the very first case to test Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights, just one year after the Constitution came into force.

2. Why the Question Came Up: Land Reform vs Property Rights

Soon after Independence, State governments in Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh passed zamindari-abolition laws — reforms that took land from large landholders (zamindars) and redistributed it to landless farmers. The zamindars challenged these laws as violating their Fundamental Rights, and different High Courts gave conflicting decisions: the Patna High Court struck down Bihar's law, while the Allahabad and Nagpur High Courts upheld similar laws in their States. This created legal chaos across the country.

To settle the confusion and protect the land reforms, Parliament passed the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, adding two new Articles: Article 31A (protecting land-reform and estate-acquisition laws from challenge under Articles 14, 19 and 31) and Article 31B together with the Ninth Schedule (placing specific listed Acts completely beyond challenge on the ground that they violate Fundamental Rights). The zamindars then challenged the amendment itself — not just the land laws — and the matter reached the Supreme Court.

3. The Four Arguments the Zamindars Made

1. The provisional Parliament had no power. India then had a one-House provisional Parliament under Article 379, but the Constitution envisaged a two-House Parliament for such important amending work — so, they argued, this Parliament could not validly amend the Constitution.
2. Article 368 is an incomplete code. It did not fully spell out how a bill should be introduced, passed, or how the President's assent should be obtained — so any gap made the amendment invalid.
3. The amendment indirectly reduced the powers of the courts. Articles 31A and 31B, they said, affected the High Courts' and Supreme Court's powers under Articles 132, 136 and 226 — which, under the proviso to Article 368, required ratification by at least half the States.
4. No ratification was obtained — so, following from argument 3, the amendment was invalid.

Underlying all four was the biggest argument: that the word "law" in Article 13(2) includes a constitutional amendment, so any amendment that takes away or abridges Fundamental Rights should be void.

4. How the Supreme Court Answered Each Argument

On the provisional Parliament: Article 379 had to be read as part of the complete constitutional framework, and the provisional Parliament did have full authority to amend the Constitution during the transitional period, even as a single chamber.

On Article 368 being incomplete: the Court agreed there were procedural gaps — but held these gaps could simply be filled using the internal rules of each House of Parliament. A missing procedural detail does not invalidate an otherwise properly passed amendment.

On Articles 31A and 31B affecting the courts: the Court explained these Articles do not reduce the High Courts' or Supreme Court's powers at all. They simply remove certain categories of cases from the scope of Part III (Fundamental Rights) altogether — so there is no Fundamental Rights issue left for a court to examine in those cases. Because the courts' jurisdiction itself was untouched, no State ratification was required.

On the central question — is an amendment "law" under Article 13(2)? This is the heart of the judgment. The Court held: fundamental rights are protected against ordinary legislation, but not against constitutional amendments. "Law" in Article 13(2) means ordinary law made in exercise of legislative power, not a constitutional amendment made in exercise of constituent power under Article 368. The makers of the Constitution never intended Fundamental Rights to be permanently unchangeable.

5. Let Us See the Example

Think of the Constitution as a large rulebook for the country, and Fundamental Rights as some of its most important chapters. Let us see the example: if Parliament wants to update or adjust even the Fundamental Rights chapter, it can do so — but only by following the correct process laid out in the rulebook itself, which is Article 368. It cannot rewrite that chapter through an ordinary law, and it cannot skip the amendment procedure. Ramesh, a citizen affected by a new ordinary law that violates his fundamental right, can strike it down under Article 13. But if the very same restriction is enacted as a properly passed constitutional amendment, Article 13 does not apply to stop it — a very different, and much higher, bar.

6. The Final Decision

• The Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 — including Articles 31A, 31B and the Ninth Schedule — was held to be valid, not ultra vires (beyond Parliament's power).
• The zamindars' petitions were dismissed.
• Parliament CAN amend Fundamental Rights, provided it correctly follows the Article 368 procedure.

7. Practical Application: Why This Case Still Matters

Shankari Prasad is the starting point of a chain of cases that shaped the entire law on constitutional amendments: it was followed in Sajjan Singh vs State of Rajasthan (1965), then reversed on this exact point in Golaknath vs State of Punjab (1967), before Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala (1973) finally settled the debate with the Basic Structure Doctrine. Understanding Shankari Prasad clearly is essential before any of those later cases make sense.

8. Quick Revision

Shankari Prasad vs Union of India (1951) — the first case on Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights. Zamindari-abolition laws led to the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 (Articles 31A, 31B, Ninth Schedule). Held: the word "law" in Article 13(2) does not include a constitutional amendment. Parliament CAN amend Fundamental Rights, as long as it follows the Article 368 procedure. Followed in Sajjan Singh (1965); reversed on this point in Golaknath (1967); the final balance was struck in Kesavananda Bharati (1973).