Issue
The main issue before the Supreme Court was whether Parliament, under Article 368 of the Indian Constitution, has the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III. Specifically, the case challenged the validity of the First Amendment Act, 1951, which curtailed the right to property and sought to abolish zamindari without compensation. The petitioners contended that constitutional amendments violating fundamental rights were invalid under Article 13(2), which prohibits laws infringing fundamental rights
Rule
The key constitutional provisions involved were:
-
- Article 368: Grants Parliament the power to amend the Constitution.
-
- Article 13(2): States that “the State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by Part III (Fundamental Rights).”
The core question was whether “law” under Article 13(2) includes constitutional amendments made under Article 368.
Application
The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision by a five-judge bench, held that constitutional amendments under Article 368 are not “law” within the meaning of Article 13(2) and therefore cannot be challenged for violating fundamental rights. The Court reasoned that Article 368 confers a special procedure and power to amend the Constitution, which includes the power to amend fundamental rights. Thus, an amendment is outside the scope of “law” in Article 13(2), as that term applies only to ordinary legislation.
The judgment distinguished between ordinary legislative power and constituent power exercised under Article 368. It upheld the First Amendment Act, 1951, allowing social reforms such as zamindari abolition to proceed without being invalidated
Conclusion
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Union of India, validating the First Amendment Act and affirming Parliament’s authority under Article 368 to amend any provision of the Constitution, including fundamental rights. This decision established the foundational principle of parliamentary supremacy in constitutional amendments and allowed transformative socio-economic reforms. Although later cases questioned the scope of this power, notably leading to the Basic Structure Doctrine, Shankari Prasad remains a landmark case defining the amending power of Parliament