Background/Facts

Constitutional/Legal Issue

Verdict & Key Principle

- Context: Shortly after the Constitution of India came into effect (1950), Parliament passed the First Amendment (1951).
‎
‎- Key Provision Challenged: This amendment curtailed the Right to Property (Article 31) and introduced safeguards (Articles 31A and 31B) to protect certain agrarian and other laws from being challenged under Fundamental Rights.
‎
‎- Petitioner: Shankari Prasad, a landholder, filed a case claiming these changes violated fundamental rights.

- Scope of Article 368: Could Parliament amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights?
‎
‎- Right to Property Issue: Whether restricting the right to property via constitutional amendment was valid.
‎
‎- Interpretation of Fundamental Rights: Were Fundamental Rights “inviolable,” or could they be amended through the procedure laid out in Article 368?

- Supreme Court’s Decision (1951): The Court upheld the First Amendment Act, holding that “the power to amend the Constitution (Article 368) includes the power to amend Fundamental Rights.”
‎
‎- Key Principle: Parliament’s amending power was considered “plenary” (complete) and not subject to judicial review as long as the amendment followed the constitutional procedure under Article 368.
‎
‎- Impact: This set the early precedent that Fundamental Rights are not immune from amendment, thereby opening the path for future amendments affecting Fundamental Rights.

Background/Facts

Constitutional/Legal Issue

Verdict & Key Principle

- Context: Parliament had passed the 17th Amendment (1964), which further protected certain agrarian reforms by adding more laws to the Ninth Schedule (originally introduced by the 1st Amendment).
‎
‎- Petitioner: Sajjan Singh and others challenged this amendment, arguing it curtailed the Right to Property and thus violated Fundamental Rights.
‎
‎- Relation to Earlier Case: This followed Shankari Prasad (1951) and continued the debate on whether Parliament could amend Fundamental Rights.

- Validity of Constitutional Amendments: Could the 17th Amendment, which restricted property rights, be invalid for violating Fundamental Rights?
‎
‎- Extent of Article 368’s Power: Was Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution (including Fundamental Rights) absolute, or could there be inherent limitations?
‎
‎- Scope of Judicial Review: Should the Supreme Court review amendments that potentially infringe upon or dilute Fundamental Rights?

- Supreme Court’s Decision (1965): The Court upheld the 17th Amendment, reaffirming that Constitutional amendments made under Article 368 are not “law” under Article 13 and thus not subject to the same Fundamental Rights constraints.
‎
‎- Key Principle: The majority followed the precedent set by Shankari Prasad, confirming that Fundamental Rights could be amended if the procedure under Article 368 was followed.
‎
‎- Significance: Although the amendment was upheld, some judges expressed concerns about the unlimited amending power. This case served as a stepping stone to the more restrictive approach in Golak Nath (1967) and eventually the Basic Structure Doctrine in Kesavananda Bharati (1973).