Supreme Court Upholds Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, Affirming Parliament’s Power to Amend Constitution

Land Reform Laws Validated; Fundamental Rights Can Be Amended by Parliament, and Provisional Parliament’s Amendment Powers Confirmed

In a landmark judgment delivered on October 5, 1951, the Supreme Court of India in Shankari Prasad Singh Deo and Others v. Union of India upheld the validity of the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, dismissing petitions challenging the amendment’s constitutionality. The case arose against the backdrop of agrarian reforms enacted by the ruling party, which sought to abolish the zamindari system in Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, and Madhya Pradesh. Several zamindars had challenged these laws in various High Courts on the ground that they violated fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. While some High Courts had upheld the laws, the Patna High Court struck down the Bihar enactment.

To resolve the conflict and prevent further litigation, the Union Government introduced the First Amendment to the Constitution, inserting Articles 31A and 31B. These provisions aimed to immunize certain land reform laws from being invalidated on the basis of fundamental rights violations. The amendment also clarified that specified Acts and Regulations listed in the Ninth Schedule could not be challenged in courts. The petitioners contested the amendment itself, raising multiple issues regarding the scope and procedure of constitutional amendments.

The Supreme Court, in a detailed and unanimous judgment by a five-judge bench led by Justice M. Patanjali Sastri, addressed the key legal challenges as follows:

1. Power of Provisional Parliament to Amend the Constitution:

The petitioners argued that the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 was vested not in the provisional Parliament but in the two Houses of Parliament as a designated body. The Court rejected this, holding that the term “Parliament” in the Constitution includes both Houses and the President, and Article 379 empowers the provisional Parliament (the Constituent Assembly functioning as a single chamber) to exercise all parliamentary powers during the transitional period. The Court emphasized that practical difficulties arising from the provisional Parliament being unicameral were validly addressed by the President’s adaptation under Article 392.

2. Procedure of Amendment Under Article 368:

It was contended that the amendment bill could not be passed with amendments and that Article 368 was a complete procedural code. The Court clarified that Article 368 does not exclude the application of normal parliamentary procedures and rules under Article 118. Parliament was entitled to amend the bill during its passage as long as the special majority requirements were met.

3. Validity of President’s Adaptation of Article 368 by Order:

The President’s Constitution (Removal of Difficulties) Order No. 2, which adapted Article 368’s language to suit the provisional Parliament, was challenged as ultra vires. The Court held that the President acted within the powers conferred by Article 392 to remove transitional difficulties, and such adaptation was necessary and constitutional.

4. Effect of Article 13(2) on Constitutional Amendments:

Petitioners argued that Article 13(2), which prohibits the State from making laws that take away or abridge fundamental rights, should apply to constitutional amendments as well. The Court distinguished between ordinary laws (made under legislative power) and constitutional amendments (made under constituent power). It held that Article 13(2) does not invalidate constitutional amendments passed under Article 368, as the framers intended fundamental rights to be protected from ordinary legislation, not from constitutional change enacted through the prescribed amendment process.

5. Requirement of State Ratification for Articles 31A and 31B:

It was contended that since Articles 31A and 31B affected judicial powers and matters under the State List, they required ratification by at least half the states under the proviso to Article 368. The Court found this argument to be a misconception. These provisions did not alter Articles 132, 136, or 226 directly but saved certain laws from judicial review. As constitutional amendments, Parliament alone had the authority to enact them. That the subject matter related to land, a State List topic, did not restrict Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution to validate such laws.

The Court observed that constitutional amendments are a sovereign function of Parliament and may override existing fundamental rights or legislative competencies, subject to the procedure prescribed in the Constitution.

Result:

All petitions challenging the First Amendment were dismissed with costs, affirming Parliament’s exclusive power to amend the Constitution, including fundamental rights provisions, and validating land reform laws critical to India’s socio-economic transformation.

This historic judgment laid the foundation for the doctrine that constitutional amendments passed by Parliament under Article 368 are not “law” within the meaning of Article 13 and thus cannot be challenged as violative of fundamental rights. It also clarified the powers of the provisional Parliament and the scope of presidential adaptations during the transition period.

Statutory provisions

Article 13, Article 31A, Article 31B, Article 32, Article 36, Article 38, Article 79, Article 107, Article 111, Article 118, Article 132, Article 136, Article 168, Article 169, Article 240, Article 368, Article 379, Article 392, Ninth Schedule

Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 113160