Shankari Prasad Case and the First Amendment Act, 1951

The Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India (1951) case was a landmark ruling in Indian constitutional law that upheld the First Amendment Act, 1951. This amendment was crucial for India's post-independence land reforms, particularly in abolishing the Zamindari System and redistributing land to peasants. However, the case also initiated a constitutional debate on the amendability of Fundamental Rights, which later led to the evolution of the Basic Structure Doctrine.

1. The First Amendment Act, 1951: Need and Provisions

A. Need for the Amendment

• After independence, India aimed to create a socialist-oriented economy and redistribute land.
• The Zamindari System, inherited from British rule, concentrated land in a few hands, leading to economic disparity and feudal exploitation.
• The government faced legal challenges when implementing land reforms as zamindars invoked Fundamental Rights (Articles 19(1)(f) and 31) to protect their land ownership.
• The amendment was necessary to ensure that land reforms could not be struck down as unconstitutional.

B. Key Provisions

1.   Ninth Schedule (Article 31B):

o    Laws placed under this schedule were immune from judicial review, meaning courts could not strike them down even if they violated Fundamental Rights.

o    Initially, 13 laws were placed in this schedule, mostly related to land reforms.

2.   Article 31A:

o    Prevented courts from invalidating land reform laws on the grounds of violating Fundamental Rights, particularly the Right to Property.

3.   Restrictions on Free Speech (Article 19(2)):

o    The amendment imposed reasonable restrictions on free speech, particularly to prevent seditious and communal propaganda.

4.   Strengthened Caste-Based Reservations:

o    Allowed the government to frame special laws for social and educational upliftment of backward classes.

2. Shankari Prasad Case, 1951: Legal Challenge

A. Case Background

• Shankari Prasad Singh Deo, a zamindar from West Bengal, challenged the First Amendment Act, 1951, arguing that:

1.   It violated his Fundamental Rights (Article 19(1)(f) – Right to Property and Article 31 – Protection against property expropriation).

2.   Parliament did not have the power to amend Fundamental Rights as per Article 13(2), which prohibits the state from making laws that infringe Fundamental Rights.

B. Supreme Court Judgment

• A five-judge bench ruled in favor of the government, holding that:

1.   A constitutional amendment is not a “law” under Article 13(2), meaning Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights.

2.   The First Amendment Act, 1951, was valid, allowing the government to implement land reforms.

C. Significance

• The ruling removed legal barriers for land reforms, enabling abolition of Zamindari in many states.
• It set a precedent that Fundamental Rights could be amended by Parliament, which was later challenged in I.C. Golaknath (1967) and Keshavananda Bharati (1973).

3. Implications and Later Developments

A. Continued Legal Challenges

1.   Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1964):

o    Upheld Shankari Prasad, ruling that Fundamental Rights can be amended.

o    However, two judges raised concerns about whether Fundamental Rights should be permanently alterable.

2.   I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967):

o    Overturned Shankari Prasad and ruled that Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights.

o    Marked a shift toward protecting Fundamental Rights from political interference.

3.   Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973):

o    Overruled Shankari Prasad and Golaknath and introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine.

o    Parliament can amend the Constitution, but cannot alter its Basic Structure (including Fundamental Rights).

o    However, the Right to Property was not considered part of the Basic Structure, allowing land reforms to continue.

B. Right to Property Reduced to Legal Right

• The 44th Amendment Act, 1978, removed Right to Property from Fundamental Rights:
• Articles 19(1)(f) and 31 were repealed.
• A new provision, Article 300A, made Right to Property a legal right, meaning property can only be taken with due legal process.

4. The Zamindari System: Background and Abolition

A. British-Era Zamindari System

• Institutionalized by Lord Cornwallis in 1793 through the Permanent Settlement Act.
• Gave zamindars hereditary rights over land and allowed them to collect revenue from peasants.
• Led to rack-renting (excessive rent), economic disparity, and rural poverty.

B. Reasons for Abolishing Zamindari

• Economic Inequality: Land was concentrated in a few hands, leaving millions of peasants landless.
• Feudal Exploitation: Zamindars had absolute control, often exploiting peasants.
• Constitutional Mandate:
• Article 39(b) and (c) emphasized redistribution of resources for socio-economic justice.
• India’s goal was to create a socialist-leaning economy.

C. Impact of Abolition

• Partially Successful:
• West Bengal and Kerala successfully implemented land redistribution.
• In other states, loopholes allowed zamindars to retain land through benami transactions.

5. Conclusion

The Shankari Prasad Case (1951) upheld the First Amendment Act, 1951, allowing land reforms and setting a precedent that Fundamental Rights can be amended. However, this was later challenged in Golaknath (1967) and ultimately settled in Keshavananda Bharati (1973) with the Basic Structure Doctrine. The case was pivotal in shaping India’s constitutional law and socio-economic policies, leading to the gradual abolition of the Zamindari System. However, land reforms had mixed success due to legal loopholes and political challenges.

Question:

Examine the constitutional and socio-economic implications of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India (1951). How did subsequent judicial pronouncements shape the amendability of Fundamental Rights in India?

Answer:

Introduction

The case of Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India (1951) was the first constitutional challenge to the First Amendment Act, 1951, which curtailed the Right to Property to facilitate land reforms. The Supreme Court upheld the amendment, ruling that Parliament had the power to amend Fundamental Rights. This judgment set the stage for a long judicial debate on the scope of constitutional amendments and the limits of parliamentary authority.

Constitutional Implications

1.  Parliament’s Power to Amend Fundamental Rights

o    The Supreme Court ruled that constitutional amendments are not "laws" under Article 13(2), which prohibits laws infringing Fundamental Rights.

o    This gave Parliament unrestricted power to amend the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.

2.  Creation of the Ninth Schedule (Article 31B)

o    Laws placed under this schedule were shielded from judicial review, ensuring that land reforms could proceed without legal obstruction.

o    This set a dangerous precedent, later misused to protect even arbitrary and unconstitutional laws.

3.  Strengthened the Executive’s Role

o    By upholding the First Amendment, the judiciary granted the executive wide-ranging powers in implementing socio-economic policies.

Socio-Economic Implications

1.  Facilitated Land Reforms

o    The abolition of the Zamindari system aimed to redistribute land to cultivators, promoting agrarian equality.

o    Weakened feudal landholdings, reducing the economic dominance of zamindars.

2.  Weakened Right to Property

o    The ruling reduced the sanctity of private property, allowing the government to acquire land without full compensation.

o    This led to legal insecurity for landowners and further constitutional debates on property rights.

3.  Strengthened Directive Principles Over Fundamental Rights

o    The judgment prioritized Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP), especially Article 39(b) and (c), over individual rights.

o    This marked a shift towards socialist economic policies in India.

Judicial Evolution on the Amendability of Fundamental Rights

1.  Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1964)

o    Reaffirmed Shankari Prasad, upholding Parliament’s power to amend Fundamental Rights.

o    However, two judges questioned whether Fundamental Rights should be amendable.

2.  I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)

o    Overruled Shankari Prasad, ruling that Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights.

o    Declared that Fundamental Rights are beyond legislative control.

o    Introduced the doctrine of prospective overruling, stating that only future amendments would be affected.

3.  Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

o    Overruled Golaknath but limited Parliament’s amending power by introducing the Basic Structure Doctrine.

o    Fundamental Rights could be amended, but not in a way that alters the Constitution’s Basic Structure.

4.  Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)

o    Strengthened the Basic Structure Doctrine, asserting that judicial review is an essential part of the Constitution.

o    Struck down parts of the 42nd Amendment, reaffirming that DPSPs cannot override Fundamental Rights.

Conclusion

The Shankari Prasad case was a crucial moment in Indian constitutional history, enabling land reforms but also igniting a debate on the balance between Fundamental Rights and Parliamentary powers. While the judgment upheld Parliament’s authority to amend Fundamental Rights, later rulings like Golaknath (1967) and Keshavananda Bharati (1973) redefined the limits of constitutional amendments, culminating in the Basic Structure Doctrine. This evolution ensured that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its core principles, preserving the fundamental ethos of Indian democracy.

1. The First Amendment Act, 1951, introduced the Ninth Schedule to the Indian Constitution. What was its primary purpose?

(a) To strengthen the fundamental rights of citizens
(b) To provide protection to land reform laws from judicial review
(c) To grant special powers to the judiciary
(d) To enhance the powers of the President of India

 Answer: (b) To provide protection to land reform laws from judicial review

2. In the case of Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India (1951), what did the Supreme Court rule regarding constitutional amendments?

(a) Fundamental Rights cannot be amended by Parliament
(b) Constitutional amendments are considered "laws" under Article 13(2)
(c) Parliament has the power to amend Fundamental Rights as amendments are not "laws" under Article 13(2)
(d) The Supreme Court ruled the First Amendment unconstitutional

 Answer: (c) Parliament has the power to amend Fundamental Rights as amendments are not "laws" under Article 13(2)

3. Which of the following cases overruled the Shankari Prasad judgment and held that Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights?

(a) Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1964)
(b) I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)
(c) Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
(d) Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

 Answer: (b) I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)

4. Which of the following amendments removed the Right to Property as a Fundamental Right and made it a legal right under Article 300A?

(a) 42nd Amendment Act, 1976
(b) 44th Amendment Act, 1978
(c) 52nd Amendment Act, 1985
(d) 73rd Amendment Act, 1992

 Answer: (b) 44th Amendment Act, 1978

5. The Zamindari System in India was primarily abolished because:

(a) It caused excessive government intervention in agriculture
(b) It led to a concentration of land in the hands of a few and increased economic inequality
(c) It promoted large-scale industrialization in rural areas
(d) It resulted in rapid urbanization and a decline in agricultural production

 Answer: (b) It led to a concentration of land in the hands of a few and increased economic inequality