Latest News
Back
Shankari Prasad v. Union of India
Shankari Prasad v. Union of India
Fundamental rights- the rights which are provided to every citizen of this country which are enforceable. The constitution of India empowers the law-making bodies which are state legislatures and parliament to frame laws within their periphery or jurisdiction. For billing to amendments in constitution can be done in parliament but the power like this isn’t absolute. If Supreme Court finds any inconsistency done by parliament with any law or along the constitution. Supreme Court has powers with it to declare that law void and invalid. Therefore, to protect the ideals & philosophy of constitution in its original medium. The doctrine is laid down for this purpose only. As per the basic structure of the doctrine, neither it can be altered nor destroyed.
The very first amendment in the constitution in 1951 was been challenged in this case of Shankari Prasad v. Union of India. The amendment in the constitution was been challenged on the grounds of violation of part-III of Constitution and thus, it should be invalid. The apex court stated that as per the article 368 of the constitution of India, the Parliament has power to change or amend in the parts of the constitution including the fundamental rights. It even stated that Article 352 and Article 356 of the constitution or some of them could be suspended during the time of emergency although it could be amended by the Parliament. Therefore, the constitutional amendments would be valid even though it takes or abridges any of fundamental rights.
According to the Article 13 of Constitution says the state can’t make any such law that can snatch away the rights given to people in part-III and any law like these if made would be considered as void till the extent of the contravention. Thus, the parliament can’t make any such law which could snatch any fundamental rights given to the citizen.
It was been challenged in this case the amendment in the Article 31(A) & Article 31(B) can’t be done as it would taking away the basic fundamental rights of people which isn’t permissible as per the Article 13. It was questioned on the basis of as state contains parliament into it and law even includes the amendments done in the constitution.
The SC followed the idea of harmony as there was contrast in the article between Article 368 & Article 13. The apex court told the provisions in the constitution be interpret in such manner that there won’t be any conflict between them and harmony would also be seen over there.
The same question came in-front of judiciary from time to time in the form of cases like:-
- Kesavananda Bharti v. the State of Kerala
- Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan
- Golak Nath v. State of Punjab
Golak Nath v. State of Punjab stats that article 368 only lays the directions to change or amend it . The authority to amend usually comes from legislation’s power held with parliament. Thus, the changes or amendments which imposes restriction on fundamental rights is invalid and void. But in the further case of Kesavananda Bharti v. the State of Kerala it was been stated overruled. It was seen as the structure of Indian constitution consisting of basic concepts can’t be changed even by the amendments. Then Article 368 can’t enable law making body to change or alter the basic framework of the Indian constitution.
