Latest News
Back
Document:
Sri Sankari Prasad Singh Deo vs Union Of India, 1951
Introduction
Fundamental Rights, comprised in Part III of the Constitution, is known as the Magna Carta of India. These are the essential basic freedoms which are enforceable by the State and ensured by the courts of law by giving writs. Crucial Rights have consistently been given extraordinary significance in the Indian Constitution and have been investigated, deciphered, and extended on different occasions to incorporate more beneficial rights, enlarging its extension. Despite the fact that under Article 352 and 356, the crucial can be suspended during crisis, yet whether they can be corrected by Parliament involves question. There are a progression of decisions wherein the amendability of Fundamental Rights was considered by the Supreme Court, which began with the Shankari Prasad Case.
In Shankari Prasad Case, the sacred legitimacy of First Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 1951 was tested, which reduced the then key right to property by inserting Article 31A and Article 31B to the Constitution.
Facts:
To cancel the zamindari framework pervasive all over India, some state councils took certain measures for agrarian changes in especially Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh by establishing Zamindari Abolition Act. Under such enactment tremendous property of land that lay with rich zamindars was to be and rearrange them among the inhabitants. Certain Zamindars, feeling themselves distressed, tested the demonstration in the courts of law as being illegal and violative of their Fundamental Right for example Right to Property gave on them by Part III of the Constitution.
The High Court at Patna held that the Act passed in Bihar was unlawful while the high court at Allahabad in Uttar Pradesh and high court at Nagpur in Madhya Pradesh maintained the legitimacy of the enactment in the states. Advances from those choices and petitions documented by some different zamindars in these courts were forthcoming. Amidst it, Union Parliament, so as to put an end all suits, presented a Bill to change the Constitution. The Bill, subsequent to going through different changes, was passed by the necessary dominant part as the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951. The Amendment Act was adequate as approving the Zamindari Abolition Laws and restricting the Fundamental Right to Property. New Articles 31A and 31B were remembered for the Constitution to approve the denounced measures. As a response, the zamindars brought the current petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution recording a writ request under the watchful eye of the Supreme Court testing the Amendment Act, expressing it as illegal and void.
Acts Involved:
- Constitutional (First Amendment) Act,1951
- Article 31A and 31B, Article 13(2), 368, 379, 392 of the Constitution,1950
- Constitution (Removal of Difficulties) Order no. 2 of 1950
Lawful Issues Involved:
- Regardless of whether Parliament's correcting power under Article 368 likewise incorporates the ability to change the central rights ensured in Part III of the Constitution?
- Regardless of whether a change of the Constitution adds up to 'Law' under Article 13(2)?
- Regardless of whether revisions condensing or removing basic rights can be tested under Article 13 for Judicial Review?
Candidate's Contention:
- The intensity of changing the Constitution is assigned to the two places of Parliament and not on the Parliament alone, along these lines the temporary parliament was not capable to practice that power under article 379.
- The force gave on Parliament by the arrangements of the Constitution Article 379 allude just to such powers as are fit for being practiced by the temporary parliament comprising of single chamber. Force presented by Article 368 accommodates the co-usable activity of two places of parliament and could be fittingly practiced by Parliament appropriately comprised under Ch. 2 of Part V.
- The President has the ability to eliminate challenges in the method of the real working of the Constitution under Article 392. He practiced his such force all together with no. 2 made by him on 26th January 1950 which implies to eliminate challenges in the method of revising the Constitution under Article 368 by variation under that Article, which was past his capacity allowed under Article 392.
- Article 368 is a finished code in itself accommodating methodology of Constitutional correction and doesn't accommodate any alteration being made to the bill after it has been presented in the house. For this situation, the bill had gone through revisions in a few specifics during its section in the house. Subsequently, the Amendment Act can't be said to have been passed incongruity with the strategy set up in article 368.
- The change demonstration, implying to disregard or remove the Fundamental rights presented by Part III of the Constitution, falls inside preclusion under Article 13(2).
- The recently embedded articles 31A and 31B trying to make changes in articles 132 and 136 in Chapter IV of Part V and article 226 in Chapter V of Part VI, require endorsement under condition (b) of stipulation to article 368, and having not been so sanctioned are void and unlawful.
- These articles are likewise ultravires as they identify with issues specified in List II, concerning which state governing bodies and not parliament have capacity to make laws.
Respondent's Contention:
- At whatever point the Constitution looked to give power upon Parliament, it explicitly referenced 'Parliament' as the donee of the force, as in articles 2,3,33,34 and various different articles, yet it maintained a strategic distance from its utilization in article 368. It doesn't imply that powers under article 368 is to practiced by other group of changing dominant part and not by parliament.
- Under article 379, temporary parliament can practice all the forces of Parliament and subsequently can act under article 368. There is no motivation to limit the understanding of the words "All the forces" in article 379 by barring a change of the Constitution from their ambit.
- There is no contention between practicing all forces under article 379 and the disallowance in article 13(2).
- Article 13(2) restricts "laws" conflict with principal rights. It can't influence article 368 as "law" under Article 13(2) alludes to the standard administrative establishments and not constitution-making.
- The contention that the bill to correct the Constitution ought to be passed as presented, without alterations, is irrational. It can't be said that the bill alluded to in article 368 needs to follow technique not quite the same as that set down for customary bills in articles 107 and 108.
- Article 31A and 31B are not administrative in character and don't influence the extent of forces of courts under article 226 and 32.
- It was battled that the new articles identified with land covered by thing 18 of List II of the Seventh Schedule and the state council alone had capacity to enact that is important. The response to this is the articles 31A and 31B which look to spare certain predetermined laws previously passed from joined activity of article 13 read with other pertinent articles of Part III are basically changes of the Constitution. Along these lines, the parliament alone had the intensity of authorizing them.
Decision of the Court:
The Supreme court precluded that the ability to alter the Constitution under Article 368 additionally incorporated the ability to correct basic rights and "law" in Article 13(2) incorporates just a common law made in exercise of the administrative powers and does exclude sacred revision which is made in exercise of constituent forces. In this way, a sacred revision will be substantial regardless of whether it compresses or takes any of the crucial rights.
The court applies the standard of Harmonic Construction as there is a contention between article 368 and article 13. The arrangements of constitution ought to be deciphered in a way that they don't struggle with one another and there is concordance between them.
In this manner, the court maintained the legitimacy of first Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 1951 and the petitions were excused with costs.
Document:
