The case of Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India (1951 AIR 458, 1952 SCR 89) represents a landmark moment in Indian constitutional law. This Supreme Court decision addresses the complex issue of amending the Constitution, specifically in relation to fundamental rights. The Court was called upon to interpret whether the Parliament had the authority to amend fundamental rights, an issue that would come to define the scope of legislative power in post-colonial India. This article critically examines the Court's reasoning, the implications for the Indian Constitution, and its enduring significance in the ongoing discourse surrounding constitutional amendments and fundamental rights.

Introduction
The first constitutional amendment was introduced in response to various challenges to land reform policies and property rights protections enshrined in the original Constitution. The 1st Amendment sought to introduce Article 31A and Article 31B, creating the Ninth Schedule of the Indian Constitution to protect legislation from judicial review, particularly laws aimed at land redistribution. The challenge in Shankari Prasad thus focused on the extent of Parliament's amending power under Article 368 and whether such power extended to modifying fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution.

Background of the Case
In 1951, the Parliament of India passed the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, which introduced significant modifications impacting land reform laws. These amendments were challenged, primarily on the ground that they violated the Constitution's guaranteed right to property under Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31.

Shankari Prasad, a zamindar (landowner) affected by these reforms, challenged the amendment, contending that Parliament had no authority to abrogate fundamental rights by amending the Constitution. The Supreme Court was therefore asked to decide whether the term "amendment" under Article 368 included the power to amend fundamental rights.

Key Issues

1. Whether the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 includes the authority to amend Part III, which guarantees fundamental rights.
2. Whether the 1st Constitutional Amendment Act was constitutionally valid and within the scope of Parliament's legislative competence.

Judgment and Reasoning of the Court

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous verdict delivered by Chief Justice H.J. Kania, held that the Parliament had the power to amend the Constitution, including fundamental rights. The key reasoning can be summarized as follows:

• Interpretation of Article 368: The Court held that Article 368 provided Parliament with the power to amend any part of the Constitution. Since the language of Article 368 does not expressly exclude any provision from being amended, the Court concluded that this power extends to Part III as well.
• Distinction between "Law" and "Amendment": The Court differentiated between ordinary laws passed by the Parliament and constitutional amendments under Article 368. According to the Court, Article 13(2) restricts the enactment of "laws" that would violate fundamental rights, but it does not apply to constitutional amendments, which are acts of the constituent power rather than the legislative power.
• Supremacy of the Amending Power: The Court further reasoned that the Constitution itself allowed for its modification to adapt to changing needs. Given that the amendment procedure was entrenched within the Constitution, Parliament was vested with supreme authority to make necessary changes to any part, including fundamental rights.

Relevant Statutes and Provisions

• Article 368 of the Indian Constitution: Grants Parliament the power to amend the Constitution. The language of this article was central to the Court's reasoning that amendments could include all parts of the Constitution, including Part III.
• Article 13(2) of the Indian Constitution: States that "the State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part (Part III)". The interpretation of "law" under this article was a focal point of the debate, as the Court interpreted it to apply only to ordinary legislation, not to constitutional amendments.
• The 1st Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951: This amendment introduced Articles 31A and 31B, adding the Ninth Schedule to protect laws from judicial review, specifically land reform laws.

Implications of the Decision

The Shankari Prasad case established the precedence that Parliament's amending power was plenary, which included the power to amend fundamental rights. The decision had significant implications for subsequent constitutional amendments and set the stage for future challenges on the amending power, particularly in the following cases:

• Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965 AIR 845): The Court upheld its decision in Shankari Prasad, reinforcing the view that Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights.
• Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967 AIR 1643): This decision deviated from the previous rulings, holding that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights, but this position was later overruled by the Kesavananda Bharati case.
• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973 AIR 1461): The Supreme Court overruled the earlier precedents of Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh, establishing the doctrine of the "basic structure" which limited Parliament's amending power by declaring that Parliament could not amend the "basic structure" of the Constitution.

Critical Analysis
The judgment in Shankari Prasad has been subject to extensive legal debate. The key criticism arises from the interpretation of Article 368 as conferring absolute amending power on Parliament. Critics argue that the decision overlooked the Constitution's intent to secure fundamental rights against legislative encroachment. Additionally, the narrow interpretation of Article 13(2) disregarded the framers' intention to establish fundamental rights as sacrosanct protections beyond the reach of parliamentary amendment.

The ruling was ultimately short-lived in light of the doctrine of basic structure established in Kesavananda Bharati, which significantly curtailed the amending power upheld in Shankari Prasad. Under this doctrine, fundamental rights were considered part of the Constitution's core framework, protected from unrestricted amendments.

Conclusion
The Shankari Prasad case is a landmark decision that laid the foundation for the debate over the balance between constitutional supremacy and parliamentary sovereignty in India. Although the ruling has since been modified by the basic structure doctrine, it remains an essential part of the Indian constitutional jurisprudence. The case illustrates the dynamic nature of constitutional interpretation and the evolving standards of judicial scrutiny over legislative power.

This case paved the way for future jurisprudence, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach to protect the Constitution's core values while allowing necessary changes through democratic processes. The doctrine of the basic structure now serves as a testament to the judiciary's role in safeguarding the Constitution, and Shankari Prasad stands as a testament to the initial understanding of parliamentary powers in a newly independent India.