Shankari Prasad v Union of India

Facts

• Parliament enacted the Constitution (First Amendment) Act 1951 inserting Articles 31A, 31B, and the Ninth Schedule
• Article 31A immunised agrarian reform laws from challenge under Articles 14, 19, and 31
• Article 31B placed specific zamindari abolition statutes in the Ninth Schedule, shielding them from all fundamental rights challenges
• Shankari Prasad, a zamindari holder from Bihar, challenged the Amendment as violating the right to property under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31

Issue

1. Whether Parliament can amend fundamental rights through the procedure under Article 368, and whether such an amendment is "law" within the meaning of Article 13(2) that is void if it abridges fundamental rights.

Held

• A constitutional amendment under Article 368 is not "law" within the meaning of Article 13(2)
• Article 13(2) refers to ordinary legislative law, not constituent power exercised to amend the Constitution
• Parliament's power under Article 368 is plenary and includes the power to amend or abridge fundamental rights
• The First Amendment is constitutionally valid and the insertion of Articles 31A, 31B, and the Ninth Schedule is within Parliament's competence
• Zamindari abolition laws placed in the Ninth Schedule are beyond challenge under Part III

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.