CAT-V

CASE ANALYSIS

Submitted to : Submitted by :
Dr. K. Shyamala Rai Nisseem Krishna

Faculty Sem: 3rd

Constitutional Law II Sec: A

Roll no: 179

Sri Sankari Prasad Singh Deo vs. Union of India (UOI) and State
of Bihar

Facts of the Case:

i. The Political Party in power enacted a legislation called Zamindary Abolition Act to
carry out certain measures of agrarian reform in Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya
Pradesh.
ii. Aggrieved by this act, some Zamindars challenged the validity of those Acts on the
ground that they contravened the fundamental rights conferred on them by Part III of
the Constitution.
iii. The Act was held unconstitutional by the High Court of Patna but was held
constitutional by the High Courts of Allahabad and Nagpur and upheld the validity of
the corresponding legislation in Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh respectively.
iv. When the appeals from these decisions as well petitions from other Zamindars were
pending in the Supreme Court, the Union Government with a view to put an end to all
this litigation brought forward a bill to amend the constitution, which after
undergoing amendments in various particulars, was passed by the Parliament which is
known as First Amendment Act, 1951.
v. After this, the Zamindars challenged the Amendment Act itself under article 32 of the
Constitution.

Issues:
i. Whether the First Amendment Act is valid or not?
ii. Whether the Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights given under Part III of the
Indian Constitution?

Contention on behalf of Petitioner:

i. The Provisional Parliament was not competent to exercise the power of amending
Constitution under Article 379 as this power had been conferred on the two houses of
Parliament and not on the Parliament.
ii. Under Article 392, the President has power to remove difficulties which arise in the
working of the Constitution, but it cannot be used to remove difficulties in way of
amending the Constitution that have been deliberately introduced by the constitution.
Moreover, no difficulty could have been possibly experienced in the working of the
Constitution on the very day the commencement of the Constitution.
iii. In any case article 368 is a complete code in itself and does not contemplate any
amendments to the Bill after its introduction in the House. As in this case, the
Amendment Bill was amended in several respects during its passage through the
Parliament, the Act cannot be said to have been passed in conformity of Article 368
and is therefore invalid.
iv. The Act abridges the fundamental rights given under Part III of the Constitution and
therefore violates Article 13 (2) of the Indian Constitution.
v. As the newly inserted Articles 31A and 32 B seeks to bring change in Part IV and Part
V of the Constitution, it requires ratification given under Article 368, and not having
so ratified it is void and unconstitutional.
vi. The Act is ultra vires as they are related to matters enumerated in the List II, with
respect to which only State Legislatures and not Parliament has power to make laws.

Contention on behalf of Defendant:

i. The Provisional Parliament was competent to exercise the power of amending
Constitution under Article 379 as under Article 379 provisional Parliament can
exercise all the powers of Parliament. All the powers in article 379 include power
to amend the Constitution and there is no reason to restrict the import of these words
by excluding amendment of the Constitution from their ambit.
ii. The word difficulty in Article 392 should not be given any technical meaning and
the adaptation of article 368 is really an adaptation for the removal of difficulties.
The adaptation is not an amendment as the adaptation is not of a permanent character
and even if it is an amendment, it is so by way of adaptation.
iii. The argument that the Bill to amend the Constitution should be passed as introduced,
without amendments, is fallacious and it cannot be said that the Bill referred to in
 article 368 has to be dealt with under a procedure different from that laid down for
ordinary Bills in articles 107 and 108.
iv. The First Amendment Act does not violate Article 13 (2) of the Indian Constitution as
Article 13 (2) prohibits laws inconsistent with fundamental rights and cannot affect
Article 368 since the word law in article 13 (2) refers to ordinary legislative
enactments and not constitution making.
v. The Act does not need ratification as stated by the Petitioner as the said articles do not
affect the scope of articles 226 and 32 and the power of the Court under the said two
articles remains unaltered.

Decision:
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the First Amendment Act and held that
Parliament can amend the fundamental rights under Article 368 of Indian Constitution.

Reasoning:
i. Article 379 should be viewed and interpreted in the wider perspective of this scheme
and not in its isolated relation to article 368 alone. The petitioners argument that the
reference in article 368 to "two Houses" makes that provision inapplicable to the
provisional Parliament would equally apply to all the provisions of the Constitution in
regard to parliamentary action and, if accepted, would rob article 379 of its very
purpose and meaning.
ii. There is nothing in Article 392 to suggest that President should wait before adapting a
particular article, till an occasion actually arose for the provisional Parliament to
exercise the power conferred by that Article. Nor is there any question here of the
President removing by his adaptation any of the difficulties which the Constitution
has deliberately placed in the way of its amendment. The adaptation leaves the
requirement of a special majority untouched. The passing of an amendment bill by
both Houses is no more a special requirement of such a bill than it is of any ordinary
law made by Parliament constitutional.
iii. Article 368 is not a "complete code" in itself and with respect to the procedure
provided by it. There are gaps in the procedure as to how and after what notice a bill
is to be introduced, how it is to be passed by each House and how the President's
assent is to be obtained.
iv. In the context of article 13 "law" means rules or regulations made in exercise of
ordinary legislative power and not amendments to the Constitution made in exercise
 of constituent power. Moreover, Article 368 empowers Parliament to amend the
Constitution, without any exception whatever. Had it been intended to save the
fundamental right from the operation of that provision, it would have been perfectly
easy to make that intention clear by adding a proviso to that effect.
v. The newly inserted Articles, 31A and 31B do not affect the power of the High
Court and they remain just the same as they were before. Only a certain class of
case has been excluded from the purview of Part III and the courts could no longer
interfere, not because their powers were curtailed in any manner or to any extent,
but because there would be no occasion hereafter for the exercise of their power in
such cases.
vi. The new articles inserted are essentially amendments of the Constitution and
Parliament alone had the power of enacting them. Thus the matter covered by List II
does not in any way affect the position. To make a law which contravenes the
constitution constitutionally valid is a matter of constitutional amendment and as such
it falls within the exclusive power of Parliament.

Conclusion:
The decision of this case was considered in 1967 in Golaknath v State of Punjab in which
the court held that the Supreme Court had taken wrong view in Sankari Prasad case and
held that Parliament had no power to amend any of the provisions of Part III, so as to take
away or abridge the fundamental rights enshrined therein. It was also held that the
amendment to the Constitution is law for the purpose of Article 13(2). The view taken
by the Supreme Court in Golaknath case is correct as fundamental rights are the
primordial rights necessary for the development of human personality and which enable
man to chalk out his own life in the manner he likes best. If power to amend the
fundamental rights will be given to the Parliament, it will defeat the very purpose of the
Constitution as it has been framed primarily to protect right of the citizens and to give
them freedom. The importance attached to the fundamental freedoms is so transcendental
that a bill enacted by a unanimous vote of all the members of both Houses should
ineffective to derogate from its guaranteed exercise. In Keshvananda Bharti v State of
Kerala also it has been held that fundamental importance of the freedom of the individual
has to be preserved for all times to come and that it could not be amended out of
existence and there is a limitation on the power of amendment by necessary implication
which is apparent from a reading of the preamble. It was also held that the word
'amendment' occurring in Article 368 must be construed in such a manner as to preserve
the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution, but not so as to result in damaging
or destroying the structure and identity of the Constitution.