🏛️ Landmark Case: Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951)

---

📚 Background

Just a year after India adopted its Constitution, the nation faced a fundamental question: Can Parliament amend the Constitution to limit or alter fundamental rights? This issue came up when the Indian government passed the First Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951, which aimed to curb landowners’ rights and introduce reservations in education.

Shankari Prasad, a landholder, challenged the amendment. He argued that Parliament could not amend Part III(Fundamental Rights) of the Constitution since these rights are guaranteed and protected.

---

⚖️ The Core Issue

The case centered on a crucial legal question:

Does the term “law” in Article 13(2) include constitutional amendments made under Article 368?

If yes, then any amendment that violates fundamental rights would be unconstitutional. If not, Parliament would have the power to amend any part of the Constitution—including fundamental rights.

---

🧑‍⚖️ Supreme Court Verdict

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of the Union of India, stating that:

1. Amendments are not “law” under Article 13
   The Court held that “law” in Article 13 refers to ordinary legislation, not constitutional amendments. So, Article 368 gives Parliament the authority to amend any part of the Constitution—including fundamental rights.

2. Parliament’s power is supreme under Article 368
   The judgment emphasized that Article 368 provides a special procedure for amending the Constitution, and this procedure is outside the scope of Article 13.

---

📌 Why This Case Mattered

This was the first case where the validity of a constitutional amendment was challenged. The judgment set a pro-Parliament precedent, giving the legislature wide powers to reshape the Constitution—even to limit fundamental rights.

However, it also sparked future legal debates and challenges, as critics argued this gave too much power to Parliament without enough checks and balances.

---

🔁 Later Developments

• In Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967), the Court reversed this view, holding that fundamental rights cannot be amended.

• But this was again overturned by the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), where the Basic Structure Doctrine was introduced—allowing amendments but not at the cost of the Constitution’s core principles.

So, while Shankari Prasad v. Union of India opened the door for amendments, later judgments refined and balanced Parliament’s powers with constitutional integrity.

---

🧠 Conclusion

The Shankari Prasad case laid the foundation for India’s amendment process and triggered one of the longest and most profound legal debates in Indian constitutional history. It’s a landmark for understanding how democratic powers must balance change with protection of rights—a conversation that continues even today.