14-February -2025-Special-Article

SIMPLIFIED NOTES ON SHANKARI PRASAD SINGH DEO V. UNION OF INDIA (1951) & FIRST AMENDMENT ACT, 1951

The First Amendment Act of 1951 was a significant constitutional amendment in India that introduced changes to fundamental rights, particularly concerning land reforms and the right to property. The amendment was challenged in the landmark case Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India (1951). This case set an important precedent for constitutional amendments and judicial review in India.

First Amendment Act, 1951

Key Provisions:

Introduction of the Ninth Schedule:

• This schedule was added to shield specific laws from judicial review.
• Initially, it included 13 laws, primarily related to land reforms.

Protection for Land Reform Laws:

• Article 31A: Prevented land reform laws from being challenged on the grounds of violating fundamental rights, particularly the right to property (Article 31).
• Article 31B: Ensured that laws listed under the Ninth Schedule remained valid, even if they conflicted with fundamental rights.

Other Amendments:

• Restricted Free Speech: The amendment imposed reasonable restrictions on Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression).
• Strengthened Caste-Based Reservations: Allowed the government to make laws for the social and educational upliftment of backward classes.

Need for the Amendment:

• After independence, the Indian government aimed to abolish the zamindari system to ensure equitable land distribution.
• Large landowners challenged land reform laws, arguing they violated their fundamental rights.
• The First Amendment Act was introduced to protect these reforms from judicial interference and allow land redistribution.

Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India (1951)

Background of the Case:

• Shankari Prasad Singh Deo, a zamindar (landowner) from West Bengal, challenged the First Amendment Act.
• He argued that the amendment, which allowed the government to acquire land without compensation, violated his fundamental rights (Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31).

Supreme Court’s Verdict:

• A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government.
• Key Reasoning:

• The Court distinguished between ordinary laws and constitutional amendments.
• Article 13(2) states that no “law” can take away fundamental rights. However, the Court ruled that constitutional amendments are not considered “laws” under this provision.
• This meant Parliament had the power to amend fundamental rights.

Significance of the Judgment:

• Allowed states to implement zamindari abolition laws and proceed with land reforms.
• Strengthened the government’s authority to make constitutional amendments.

Implications of the Verdict

Continued Legal Challenges:

• Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1964): The Court upheld the decision in the Shankari Prasad case, but two judges raised concerns about whether fundamental rights should be amendable.
• C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967): The Supreme Court reversed its position and ruled that Parliament cannot amend fundamental rights.
• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): A larger bench introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, stating that while Parliament can amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its basic structure (including fundamental rights).

Right to Property Becomes a Legal Right:

• The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 removed the right to property from the list of fundamental rights.
• Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31 were repealed.
• Article 300A was introduced, making the right to property a legal right instead of a fundamental right.

Zamindari System and Its Abolition

What Was the Zamindari System?

• Introduced by the British under Lord Cornwallis in 1793 through the Permanent Settlement Act.
• Zamindars were given the right to collect rent from peasants on behalf of the British government.
• It led to exploitation, as landlords often charged excessive rent (rack-renting), leaving farmers in extreme poverty.
• The government received 10/11th of the collected revenue, while zamindars retained a small portion.

Reasons for Abolition:

1. Land Concentration in a Few Hands: Created economic inequality and left millions of farmers landless.
2. Constitutional Mandate: Article 39(b) and (c) promoted equitable resource distribution.
3. Socialist Economic Vision: India aimed to create a more egalitarian society by redistributing land.
4. Improving Agricultural Productivity: Smaller landholdings were expected to enhance productivity and efficiency.

Challenges in Implementation:

• Benami Transactions: Many zamindars transferred land ownership to relatives or trusted individuals to avoid losing their estates.
• Partial Success:

• The abolition of zamindari was effective in states like West Bengal and Kerala.
• However, in many regions, land reforms failed to break feudal land control.

Conclusion

The First Amendment Act of 1951 played a crucial role in shaping India’s land reform policies and judicial review framework. The Shankari Prasad case set the precedent for parliamentary supremacy in constitutional amendments but was later modified by subsequent judgments, leading to the introduction of the Basic Structure Doctrine. Although zamindari abolition laws were implemented, their success varied across states due to loopholes and challenges in execution. Eventually, the right to property was downgraded to a legal right, ensuring that land reforms could continue without constitutional roadblocks.

Mains Question:

1. Discuss the significance of the First Amendment Act, 1951, in the context of land reforms in India. How did the Supreme Court rulings shape the constitutional position of the right to property? (150 WORDS)