Skip to main content

Shankari Prasad v Union of India : Case Analysis

 Shankari Prasad v Union of India : Case Analysis

Facts

After the Independence of India, the agrarian land reforms through legislation was enacted in

the states of Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh which was known as the Zamindari

Abolition Act. The zamindars were upset because due to this they were deprived of their

respective landholdings. The zamindars to get hold of there properties filled a petition in the

High Court of Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh as this law is violative of their

Fundamental Rights. The Patna High Court invalidated the Bihar Land Reforms Act 1950,

whereas High Courts at Allahabad and Nagpur upheld the validity of the legislation in Uttar

Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. 

The Government brought forward a remedy in the form of the Constitution (First

Amendment) Act, 1951 to put an end of the various litigation regarding the same issue. The

zamindars reacted by bringing the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution and raised the

question whether the Constitutional (First Amendment) Act, 1951 which was passed by the

Parliament and insert article 31A and article 31B in the Constitution of India is

unconstitutional and void. 

Issues Raised

 Whether the 1st Constitutional Amendment, 1951 passed by the Parliament is valid.

 Whether the word ‘law’ used under Article 13(2) also includes the ‘law of the

amendment of the Constitution of India.

.

Judgement/Holding with Reasoning

The judgment was delivered by Hon’ble Judge M Patanjali Sastri.

The Court unanimously held that even if the amendment is considered to be superior to

ordinary legislation, it will not be able to strike its validity by Article 13(2). The word ‘law’

as given under Article 13(2) ordinarily will be inclusive of Constitutional amendment but it

must be in consideration of ordinary legislative power and therefore the constitutional

amendment done by the Parliament in its constitutional power is not subjected to Article

13(2) and such powers include the power to amend the Fundamental Rights.  The Court

observed that “We are of the opinion that in the context of Article 13 law must be taken to

mean rules and regulations made in the exercise of ordinary legislative power and not


amendments to the Constitution made in the exercise of constituent power with the result

that Article 13(2) does not affect amendments made under Article 368.” The Court upheld

the validity of the First Amendment Act, 1951by using the literal interpretation. It also held

that Article 368 entitle the Parliament to amend the Constitution with treating the

Fundamental Rights with any exceptions unlike they are treated under Article 368. The Court

diverged with the view that the Fundamental Rights can be here inviolable. The Supreme

Court narrowed the view if Article 13(2) and adopted the progress of the independent nation

through the acquisition of property.

Critical Analysis

The Supreme Court by dismissing the petition by the petitioners have narrowed down the

scope of Article 13(2). The unanimous decision of the bench also followed in the next case

of Sajjan Singh v State of Rajasthan were the court upheld the Shankari Prasad case.

Further Development in the Journey of Basic Structure

The Indian Judiciary gave the complete amending power but later this position was changed

with a completely different outlook.

The question regarding the amenability of the Fundamental Rights conferred and given in the

Constitution of India could be revoked or limited by amendment of the question still remains

the centre for the conversation.

The cases which marked and contributed in this judicial discussion which was started in the

said case of Shankari Prasad are Sajjan Singh v State of Rajasthan, Golaknath v State of

Punjab and later all have culminated in Keshavananda Bharti v State of Kerala.

Overruling of  Shankari Prasad v Union of India

The majority in the case of I.C Golaknath n State of Punjab overruled the said judgement and

held that no distinction can be found between the power of legislative and constituent power.

Justice Hidayatullah held that the amending power was not to be found as the residuary

power of our legislation. The procedure as laid down in Article 368 when compiled resulted

in the amending ability of the Constitution. It can be called the legislative power. The

majority held that the Fundamental Right has a transcendental approach and position in the

constitution and so Article 368 would be incompetent to amend the Fundamental Right. 

This added the ongoing controversy and power struggle between the Judiciary and the

Legislature.


I.C. Golaknath v State of Punjab was overruled

The Supreme Court in the Keshavananda Bharti v State of Kerala overruled the Golaknath

case. The court held that the inherent limitation of the power of Parliament in regards to

amendment and Article 368 does not confer any power to destroy the Basic Structure of the

Constitution

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more