Reviewed case brief
Shankari Prasad v Union of India
AIR 1951 SC 458
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Constitution (First Amendment) Act 1951, which introduced Articles 31A and 31B and the Ninth Schedule to immunise zamindari abolition laws from challenge. The Court held that a constitutional amendment is not "law" under Article 13(2) and therefore Parlia
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Year
- 1951
- Subjects
- Land Laws
- Reviewed
- 2026-06-18
Rule established
Constitutional amendments under Article 368 are not "law" within the meaning of Article 13(2) and therefore cannot be challenged for violating fundamental rights
Facts
- Parliament enacted the Constitution (First Amendment) Act 1951 inserting Articles 31A, 31B, and the Ninth Schedule
Issues
Held
- A **constitutional amendment** under Article 368 is not "law" within the meaning of Article 13(2)
Ratio decidendi
The word "law" in Article 13(2) refers to ordinary law made in exercise of legislative power and does not include a constitutional amendment made under Article 368. Consequently, Parliament's constituent power to amend the Constitution is not subject to the limitation that it shall not abridge fundamental rights. The First Amendment validly introduced Articles 31A and 31B to protect agrarian reform legislation.
How to use it in an exam
- Essential for tracing the evolution of amending power from Shankari Prasad (1951) to Kesavananda Bharati (1973)
Editorial source
AIR 1951 SC 458; verified via SCC Online
Educational summary only. Read the reported judgment or an authorised law report before relying on the case professionally.