TITLE: - CASE COMMENT - “SHANKARI PRASAD SINGH DEO V.

UNION OF INDIA 1951 AIR 458, 1952 SCR 89”

RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL

UNIVERSITY OF LAW, PUNJAB

CONSTITUTION LAW PROJECT

Submitted By: - Submitted To:-

Rohan Gera Dr. Lakhwinder Singh

Roll No: - 20130 Asst. Professor of Law

Section: - B RGNUL
This certificate is to declare that this project-based upon “CASE COMMENT - SHANKARI
PRASAD SINGH DEO V. UNION OF INDIA 1951 AIR 458, 1952 SCR 89” is an original
work of Rohan Gera, a student of BA.LLB 2nd year, who is a bonafide student of the Rajiv
Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab.

BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE

SIGNATURE

Rohan Gera
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The success and ultimate result of this undertaking required a great deal of direction and
help from numerous individuals and I am amazingly advantaged to have this from the very
scratch of this task.

I respect and express my gratitude to Dr. Lakhwinder Singh, for providing me an

opportunity to do the project work in RGNUL and giving us support and guidance which
made me complete the project duly.

I am thankful for and fortunate enough to get constant encouragement, support, and
guidance from all Teaching staff that helped us successfully complete our project work. I
extend my thanks to all the staff members of the IT lab and library who supported my
research process.

Rohan Gera
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. Cover Page.....................................................................................................................01

B. Bonafide Certificate.......................................................................................................02

C. Acknowledgement..........................................................................................................03

D. Table of Contents...........................................................................................................04

1. Title, Background and Facts of the Case................................................................05-08

1.1 Background..........................................................................................................05-08

1.1 Issues..........................................................................................................................08

2. Laws and Rules applicable.......................................................................................08-10

3. Judgement..................................................................................................................10-12

4. Analysis......................................................................................................................12-17

5. Conclusion.......................................................................................................................17
The Indian
M.P.
Granville
Jain,Austin.
The
Express
Indian
The
, 15
Constitutional
Indian
MarchConstitution
1977,Law
p 5 694-5
• Cornerstone
(1993). of a Nation 50(1966)

1. Title, Background and Facts of the case

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(BEFORE HARILAL KANIA C.J, M.PATANJALI SASTRI J, B.K.MUKHERJEE J,

SUDHIR RANJHAN DAS J AND N. CHANRASEKHARA AIYAR J)

Shankari Prasad Singh Deo --------- Petitioner

Versus

Union of India & State of Bihar ---------- Respondent

Reference No. - 1951 AIR 458, 1952 SCR 89

1.1 Background and Facts of the case

With the ratification of the Constitution by members of the Constituent Assembly on

November 26, 1949, India awakened from the political hibernation of colonial rule and
became the world's biggest democracy. Thus, for the first time in 150 years, a country with
the world's second-largest population, socially and economically backward, and culturally
varied, found itself in a position to select its own future course of action in order to rebuild
itself strong and efficiently. The Indian Constitution's Preamble comprises a solemn
declaration to secure the citizens of India, including, inter alia, social, economic, and
political justice. The Preamble's objectives are given substance and reality by providing
people and others a variety of social and economic rights. Austin correctly characterises
the Indian Constitution as a sociocultural document1 that entails a slew of political and
socioeconomic rights as well as a set of policy principles known as the Directive Principles
of State Policy.2These principles are preceded by a general assertion that, while not

2
 Dada Bhai Naroji, Povertyofand Un-British
enforceable in a court law, they areRule in India to
essential 34 the
,Ruddar Dutt and
country's K.P.M. Sundaram.
government. It hasIndian
been
Economy 121-2 ( 1990 )
conferred on the state to make legislation based on these ideas. The state is urged to take
meaningful actions to reduce current economic inequities based on these principles. It
provides that the state try to enhance individuals' welfare by establishing and preserving, as
effectively as possible, a social order in which social, economic, and political justice
informs all aspects of national life. It provides that the government must guide its
initiatives toward making sure that the society's material assets are disbursed in such a way
that best serves the public good, and that the economic system's function doesn't really lead
in the accumulation of assets and means of production to the detriment of the common
good, i.e. not in the hands of a few only.3 It goes without saying that the bulk of Indians
lived in villages and were either farmers or solely reliant on their primary jobs. As a result,
among the several schemes implemented to provide social justice for them, the agricultural
restructuring programme was crucial.

Perhaps the most important goal of agricultural restructuring was to bring about significant
changes in the agricultural structure. The pre-Independence India's outdated and
inegalitarian structure culminated in unequal distribution of income, wealth, and
discrepancies in living standards.4 Furthermore, the programme was created to remove all
forms of exploitation and social injustice in the agrarian structure, ensuring that all
members of the rural population had equal position and opportunities. As a result, the
majority of land reform measures were designed to reduce the accumulation of cultural
landholdings in the control of a few large landlords.

What exactly was the situation that only 5% of the population of the nation comprised of
Zamindars who had control of over 60-70% of the total agricultural land in the nation and
there existed poor and landless labourers and tenants who comprised of 90-95% of the total
population as agriculture was the predominant activity in the pre-British times. Since there
existed wide disparities in a stratified society where caste system was dominant, the point
of socio-economic welfare of the people by redistribution of excess property became
important, as a result of which, the Zamindari Abolition Acts were introduced in most of
the states. Those whose rights to own property were curtailed by these laws went to court
and challenged the constitutionality of the legislation.5

FACTS

 Due to the widespread inequality and in the name of socio-economic development,

most of the councils in the states of UP, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh took upon
themselves to establish the Zamindari Abolition Acts for their respective states for
the abolition of the zamindari system prevalent in India.

3 https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/COI-updated.pdf - Article 37

4 ibid Art 39(b)(c)

5
  The constitutional and legal issues that were raised arose when the matter was
debated in several High Courts, with the High Courts of Allahabad and Nagpur
upholding the constitutionality of land reform legislations in the State of Surya Pal
Singh v. State of U.P. A.l.R. 1951.
 Under this kind of legislation, vast land holdings held by wealthy zamindars were
to be re-allocated among the people. Concerned, several Zamindars took the rally to
court, claiming it was illegal and infringing on their fundamental rights, such as the
right to property granted to them by Part III of the Constitution.6

Challenge to Bihar Abolition of Zamindars Act 1948 in Patna High Court - Kameshwar
Singh v. State of Bihar A.I.R 19517 -Article 19(1)(f) provides that people have
fundamental right to property and thus, Bihar government cannot take away individual's
property rights and this contention was upheld by the Patna High Court. The assembly
deemed it necessary to modify the Constitution in order to speed up the enforcement of
land reforms laws. As a result, the legislature altered the Constitution for the very first time
barely seventeen and a half months after it was enacted, without awaiting the Supreme
Court's verdict. Advances from those decisions, as well as petitions filed in these courts by
various zamindars, were imminent. During this time, the Union Parliament introduced a
Bill to alter the Constitution in order to put an end to all lawsuits. Following further
revisions, the bill was accepted by the requisite majority as the Constitution (First
Amendment) Act of 1951. As far as endorsing the Zamindari Abolition Laws and limiting
the Fundamental Right to Property, the Amendment Act was sufficient.The Constitution
(First Amendment) Act of 1951 provided for; Making the right to property under Article
19(1)(f) a LIMITED RIGHT; Inserting Articles 31 A and 31 B - power of land acquisition
is with the State or Central government and; Adding the 9th Schedule to the Constitution to
protect land reforms measures and other legislations included in it from judicial review -
no law given and introduced under the 9th schedule could be questioned in a court of
law.As a result of their frustration, the zamindars filed the existing petitions under Article
32 of the Constitution, recording a writ request under the close watch of the Supreme
Court, challenging the Amendment Act and declaring it illegal and void because it removes
their right to challenge such legislation in a court of law, as well as the right to Judicial
Review from the courts.Thus, the Constitution (First Amendment) Act of 1951 was
challenged in the case of Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India AIR 1952.81.2
Issues before the Court

 The major question before the court was that whether the Fundamental Rights can
be amended under Article 368 of the Constitution?

6 https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-6248-case-analysis-shankari-prasad-v-s-union-of-
india.html#:~:text=The court gave the verdict,constituent power under Article 368.

7 1952 SCR 889 : AIR 1952 SC 252

8 1952 SCR 89 : AIR 1951 SC 458

 Singh,
 Baldev.
ARTICLE “NINTH 31 SCHEDULE
A - SavingTO CONSTITUTION
of laws OF INDIA :
providing for A STUDY.”
acquisition Journal
of estates, etc of( 1the) Indian
Law Institute, vol. 37, no. 4, 1995, pp. 457–75, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43953246. Accessed 22 Apr.
2022. Notwithstanding anything contained in Article 13, no law providing for

(a) the acquisition by the State of any estate or of any rights therein or the
extinguishment or modification of any such rights, or
(b) the taking over of the management of any property by the State for a limited period
either in the public interest or in order to secure the proper management of the property,
or
(c) the amalgamation of two or more corporations either in the public interest or in
order to secure the proper management of any of the corporations, or
 Whether amendment made to Fundamental Rights under Article 368 is violative of
Article 13 of the Constitution?

 Can the Parliament amend Fundamental Rights to implement the Directive

Principles of State Policy?

 What is the constitutional validity of Article 31 B when read with the Ninth
Schedule of the Constitution?

2. Laws and Rules Applicable

 ARTICLE 19(1)(f) - Freedom to; right to acquire, hold and dispose of property
which was not possible due to economic differences. (Omitted by the 44th
Constitutional Act of 1978)

(d) the extinguishment or modification of any rights of managing agents, secretaries and
treasurers, managing directors, directors or managers of corporations, or of any voting
rights of shareholders thereof.9
 ARTICLE 31 B - Certain Acts and Regulations are Validated Regardless of any
judgement, decree, or order of any court or tribunal to the contrary, none of the
Acts and Regulations specified in the Ninth Schedule, nor any of their provisions
stipulations, shall be considered void, or ever to have become void, on the ground
that such Act, Regulation, or stipulation is conflicting with, or strips away or
curtails any of the right granted by, any provisions of this Part, and notwithstanding
any judgement, decree, or order of any court or tribunal to the contrary.

 ARTICLE 13 - Laws inconsistent with or in the derogation of fundamental rights:

9
 (1) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, Parliament may in exercise of its
constituent power amend by way of addition, variation or repeal any provision of this
Constitution in accordance with the procedure laid down in this article.

(2) An amendment of this Constitution may be initiated only by the introduction of a Bill
for the purpose in either House of Parliament, and when the Bill is passed in each House
by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-
thirds of the members of that House present and voting, it shall be presented to the
President who shall give his assent to the Bill and thereupon the Constitution shall stand
amended in accordance with the terms of the Bill:
1. All laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this
Constitution, in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Part, shall, to the
extent of such inconsistency, be void.
1. The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this
Part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the
contravention, be void.
1. In this article, unless the context otherwise requires law includes any Ordinance, order, bye
law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usages having in the territory of India the
force of law; laws in force includes laws passed or made by Legislature or other competent
authority in the territory of India before the commencement of this Constitution and not
previously repealed, notwithstanding that any such law or any part thereof may not be then
in operation either at all or in particular areas
1. Nothing in this article shall apply to any amendment of this Constitution made under
Article 368.10
 ARTICLE 368 - Power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution and the
Procedure thereof:

Provided that if such amendment seeks to make any change in –(a) article 54, article 55,
article 73, article 162, article 241 or article 279A or(b) Chapter IV of Part V, Chapter V of
Part VI, or Chapter I of Part XI, or(c) any of the Lists in the Seventh Schedule, or(d) the
representation of States in Parliament, or(e) the provisions of this article,the amendment
shall also require to be ratified by the Legislatures of not less than one-half of the States by
resolutions to that effect passed by those Legislatures before the Bill making provision for
such amendment is presented to the President for assent.11

10 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/660119/

11 https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-6521-article-13-of-indian-constitution-easy-
explanation.html#:~:text=Article of the Indian,it infringes the fundamental rights.
(3) Nothing in article 13 shall apply to any amendment made under this article.

(4) No amendment of this Constitution (including the provisions of Part III) made or
purporting to have been made under this article whether before or after the commencement
of section 55 of the Constitution (Forty second Amendment) Act, 1976 shall be called in
question in any court on any ground.

(5) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that there shall be no limitation
whatever on the constituent power of Parliament to amend by way of addition, variation or
repeal the provisions of this Constitution under this article.

3. Judgement

Justice M. Patanjali Shastri, B.K. Mukherjee, Sudhir Ranjan Das, N. Chandrasekhara

Aiyar, and Chief Justice Hiralal Kania were on the five-judge bench that heard this historic
case of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, while disposing off the petition, held that:

 Article 368 of the Constitution gives Parliament the capacity to modify the
Constitution and the Constitutional Rights, and it is not a breach of the Constitution
and thus, the changes that were brought in by the Constitution (First Amendment)
Act of 1951 were not violative of the provisions of the Constitution.

 The Supreme Court did not limit the High Court's authority provided under article
226 to submit writs for the implementation of any of the powers afforded by Part
III, or the Supreme Court's power under articles 132 and 136 to file appeals in
favour of orders awarding or rejecting those writs, so the land reforms were upheld.
In furtherance of the same,, the Court also ruled that, notwithstanding the fact that
the issue of 'Land' was covered by the State List, Parliament had sole authority to
amend the Constitution.12

 Because there is a conflict between article 368 and article 13, the court uses the
Harmonic Construction approach. The constitution's layouts should be interpreted
in such a way that they don't conflict with one another and are in sync.13

 Moreover, the doctrine of Harmonious Construction was used in finding out

whether the Fundamental rights can be amended to implement DPSPs. The
contention of the petitioners were that if DPSPs aren't supreme but Fundamental

12 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_India

13 https://lawcorner.in/shankari-prasad-vs-union-of-india-critical-analysis/
#Issues_raised_in_Shankari_Prasad_Case
 rights are, how can the government change them if DPSPs aren't?  Supreme Court
provided that government applied Article 46 of the Constitution which provides
that t he government will make arrangements for the advancement of SCs and STs -
The government did the same thing as it took the higher caste's land and
redistributed surplus lands among landless classes - The reaction was that the
government can enforce DPSPs but how can you abridge an individual's
Fundamental rights. Thus, the Principle of HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION
was used by the court. As an example, if you're implementing DPSPs, be sure
you're not compromising FR too much - the greater good of society must be
considered. Thus, there must be a balance between DPSPs and FRs in order to
implement both without rendering either ineffective. FRs must not take precedence
over DPSPs, and DPSPs must not be implemented in such a way that the FRs
become null and void.
 The Supreme Court disregarded the contention of the petitioners that ‘law’
contained in Article 13 (2) of the Constitution of India includes constitutional
amendments. The distinction between legislative and constituent authority was
made by Patanjali Shastri J. The experienced Judge decided that the term "law" as
defined in Article 13 did not encompass constitutional amendments made in the
execution of constituent authority, and that fundamental rights also weren't
excluded from amending power.14 Even though a constitutional modification is a
law, the Court concluded that there is a significant distinction among legislative
and constituent power. Moreover, it was declared that the phrase 'law' as defined in
Article 13 (2) comprises ordinary law enacted in the exercise of legislative
authority but excludes constitutional amendments enacted in the exercise of
constitutional power. Thus, the First Amendment Act's Articles 31 A and B were
found valid and, as a result, were not considered ultra vires the Indian Constitution.
Thus, The Supreme Court restricted the scope of Article 13(2) and accepted the
acquisition of property as a means of advancing an independent nation.15

4. Critical Analysis
Not only did the rationale of the judgement have deficiencies, but the effect of the
judgement was such that the country's forefathers and constitution makers could never
have envisioned in their wildest imagination. The ruling is unacceptable to those who
14 https://lawcorner.in/shankari-prasad-vs-union-of-india-critical-analysis/
#Issues_raised_in_Shankari_Prasad_Case

15 https://lawcirca.com/shankari-prasad-v-union-of-india-amendability-of-fundamental-rights/
#JudgementHolding_with_Reasoning
desire to see the country rise
http://www.probono-india.in to ›greater
› Paper heights
602_Shankari of civilisation
Prasad Case by adhering to the judicial
system. In fact, the ruling allowed parliament unrestricted freedom to modify the
constitution in any way it saw fit, particularly core aspects like fundamental rights. This
allocation may be construed as providing the ability to form a dictatorship while putting
the true sovereign (the people of the country) at the vulnerability of the parliament.

The decision was founded on the erroneous belief that article 368 provides parliament the
ability to change the Constitution. However, it is article 245 (when read in conjunction
with entry 97 of list 1 of the Indian constitution) that grants the legislature the ability to
alter the constitution. Article 368, on the other hand, is only concerned with the mechanism
for amending the Constitution. It is clear from the judgement that it was built on the
principle that the legislature is paramount or sovereign. This was a mistake on the court's
behalf, because in India, the people, not the parliament, are sovereign. Furthermore, the
court determined there is no implicit restriction in the constitution that prevents parliament
from altering any of the provisions.
In this case, the Court omitted to deduce from past that the elimination of our constitution's
fundamental features would be contrary to our forebears' ethos and the concept of India
which they had dreamt of while framing the constitution. It is logical to suppose that
concentrating such power in the hands of one pillar of democracy will undermine the
notion of division of powers and the concept of the rule of law. For example, if the
legislature has all authority, it can even abolish the court, which is responsible for
upholding the constitution and safeguarding fundamental rights.
The decision effectively limits the ability of judicial review, paving the way for
dictatorship to flourish. Furthermore, such a decision will reduce the constitution to
common law.

If we talk about way forward, the case of Shankari Prasad played a crucial role in
development of the Basic Structure Doctrine as propounded in the Kesvanada Bharti v.
State of Kerala as the Supreme court upheld the validity of the decision that the Parliament
can make laws under Article 368 under which it can abridge an individual’s fundamental
rights. Following this, the Constitution was amended multiple times, and the extent of the
revisions was once again contested in the case of Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR
196516. The constitutionality of the 17th Constitutional Amendment, which added about 44
legislations to the 9th Schedule, was decided by a five-judge bench in Sajjan Singh. While
all of the justices accepted with Shankari Prasad's verdict, the dissenting opinion by

16
Hidyatullah and Mudholkar JJ cast doubt on Parliament's unrestricted capacity to modify
the Constitution and constrain people' fundamental rights for the very first time.

What exactly happened in the Golaknath case was a bit interesting as the Supreme court
gave the decree as a dissenting opinion that the fundamental rights are outside the purview
of the amendment to the constitution. In the Golak Nath v. State of Punjab 196717. The
insertion of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 in the Ninth Schedule was
contested in a writ petition, while the inclusion of the Mysore Land Reforms Act in the
Ninth Schedule was questioned in two others, altogether filed by the sons of Golak Nath.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court issued an 11-judge bench ruling with a 6:5 ratio held that: -
 The ability of Parliament to change the Constitution is drawn from Article 245,
read in conjunction with Entry 97 of List I of the Constitution. Article 368 was
explicitly meant to exclusively enable for the Amendment Procedure and nothing
else.
 The Court further stated that an amendment to the Constitution is included in the
definition of 'law' under Article 13(2). As a result, any change that violated the
Fundamental Rights was invalid.18
 The contention that the authority to change the Constitution is a sovereign power
separate from legislative power and hence beyond the reach of judicial review was
dismissed.

The 1st, 4th, and 17th Amendments, though, were not deemed illegal by the Court because
the decision was made prospectively. This indicated therefore no additional alterations to
the Constitution could be made that would infringe on fundamental rights. However, the
Court ruled that the judgments of Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh were defective in law
since it was provided that Article 13(2) does not constitute a constitutional change under
Article 368. 19

What was another major development was the passing of the very controversial 24th
Constitutional Amendment in 1971 wherein the powers of the Parliament with respect to
amendments in fundamental rights was restored as the Golak Nath diluted the powers of

17 Supra note 11

18 (1965) 1 SCR 933 : AIR 1965 SC 845

19 (1967) 2 SCR 762 : AIR 1967 SC 1643

the Parliament to amend the constitution freely. It not only restored the earlier position but
also extended the powers of the government to a greater extent. It provided: -
 'Nothing in this Article shall apply to any change of this Constitution made under
Article 368,' according to a new clause (4) inserted to Article 13.
 Article 368's ancillary header was changed from 'Procedure for amending the
Constitution' to 'Power of Parliament to modify the Constitution and Procedure,
consequently.'20
 'Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, Parliament may, in the execution of
its Constituent Power, change by means of addition, variation, or repeal any
stipulation of this Constitution in accordance with the procedure laid out in this
Article,' was added to Article 368.
 By redefining words 'it shall be submitted to the President who shall give his assent
to the Bill and thereupon' to 'it shall be introduced to the President for his
acceptance and upon such assent being given to the Bill,' the President was made
obligated to deliver acceptance to any Bill modifying the Constitution. 21

This all culminated into one of the most historic cases in the history of Indian Judicial
system concerning basic fundamental rights in the form of Kesavananda Bharti v. State of
Kerala 197322. The original purpose of this litigation was to question the constitutionality
of the Kerala Land Reforms Act of 1963. The Constitution's 29th Amendment, however,
moved it to the Ninth Schedule. The petitioner was allowed to contest the legitimacy of the
24th and 25th Amendments as well as the 29th Amendment. The historic decision was
handed down by a 13-judge panel with a 7:6 majority, overturning the Golak Nath case. It
was decided that while Parliament's ability to alter the Constitution is broad and covers all
Articles, it is not boundless to the point of destroying the Constitution's basic features or
structure. Amendment 24th was held valid and the rationale behind it that was decreed that
it provided to restore to the original text only or what had already been there to the
Constitution. The Judges, though didn’t provide a list of what actually are the features of
the basic structure, but illustrated a few. C.J. Sikri illustrated; 23

 The supremacy of the Constitution

20 https://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l426-L.-C.-Golaknath-V.-State-Of-Punjab.html

21 https://www.clearias.com/basic-structure-doctrine/

22 https://www.constitutionofindia.net/blogs/desk_brief__the_24th_amendment

23 Supra note 20
  Republican and Democratic forms of Government
 Secular character of the Constitution
 Separation of Powers between the legislature, the Executive, and the Judiciary
 Federal Character of the Constitution

In the case of Indra Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain 197624, trust in the principle was upheld
and confirmed. The appellant in this issue had lodged an application against the Allahabad
High Court's ruling cancelling her election as Prime Minister. While the Supreme Court's
appeal was ongoing, the 39th Amendment was implemented and enforced, which provided
that no court has the authority over the Prime Minister's election challenges. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court, citing Kesavananda Bharati's judgement, ruled that democracy is a
fundamental aspect of the Constitution and is a component of its basic structure. The
panel also included the rule of law and the power of judicial review to the basic structure's
list of components.

The Ninth Schedule's inclusion in the Constitution is a contentious issue. It causes internal
constitutional contradictions and constitutional paradoxes. On the one hand, the
Constitution provides that the state not make any law that strips away or curtails any of the
rights guaranteed by Part III, and on the other hand, the state gives that laws inconsistent
with Part III that are contained in the Ninth Schedule are not subject to legal contest. As a
result, jurists, advocates, and politicians have questioned this section of the Constitution,
which provides total immunity to state and federal policies that violate Fundamental
Rights. The Ninth Schedule of the Indian Constitution, according to Justice P.B.
Mukherjee, reveals a lengthy list of legislation and Acts that the Supreme Court and High
Courts have found ultra vires the Constitution and quashed as unlawful and void. The
inclusion of void and illegal Acts into the Constitution in order to render them
constitutional is a clear example of the Indian legislature's non - compliance of the
Constitution. 25
Furthermore, Atal Behari Vajpayee emphasised the importance of the Ninth Schedule,
stating that the Constitution's Ninth Schedule was primarily enacted to defend specific land
reform measures. It is now being broadened to include legislation like the Maintenance of
Internal Security Act, the Prevention of Publication of Objectionable Matter Act, and the
Representation of People Act to protect them from becoming contested as violating

24 https://www.clearias.com/basic-structure-doctrine/

25 (1973) 4 SCC 225 : AIR 1973 SC 1461 : 1973 Supp SC 1

fundamental
1975Statesman,
"The
The Role
AIR 2299 rights.
Feb.26in
of Judiciary
23
= 1976 Surendra
(2)
1977
the
SCR 347 Mohan,
Governmental the Janata
= 1975 Process".
Suppl. SCC Party's
Patna
1 Civil then-General
L. College
AppealsJ. Nos.
41 (196 Secretary,
887 and argued
909 of 1975

that the use of the Ninth Schedule had become such a detriment to the fine balance among
the judiciary, the government, and the legislative. Focusing on the abuse, he noted that the
ruling party has exploited and misused the Ninth Schedule to remove from the court's
purview certain enactments that are contradictory to the Constitution's meaning.27

In response to Jain's comments on Article 31-B and the Ninth Schedule, he stated that this
technique of altering the Constitution is subject to significant criticism. The state statutes
that include in the Ninth Schedule have been exempted from judicial scrutiny since no one
has evaluated the standards and procedures that underpin them. The methodology of
constitutional modification, according to Jain, ought to set down broad concepts and then
leaving it to the judiciary to flesh out the ramifications and implement them to actual
situations. Article 31-B and the Ninth Schedule, in his judgement, could not be
substantiated as a method of constitutional amenability. 28

5. Conclusion

The case we discussed here dealt with one of the most prominent and contentious issue in
the history of Indian judiciary wherein one of the most important questions was provided
an answer to, “ Can the Fundamental Rights be amended?” to which this case specifically
answered that the fundamental rights can be amended by the Parliament by what so mean
ever and also provided that such amendments made were barred form any sort of judicia
review, i.e. It could not be contested in a court of law. But if we take in account the
implications of such judgement which was upheld in the Sajjan Singh Case, we find that
there are serious issues and there lies a long list of judgements and those new constitutional
provisions where the issue was always in discussion and the end was quite satisfactory as it
was produced in the Basic structure doctrine case that the basic features of the constitution
cannot be amended whatsoever which included the concept of Fundamental rights. We also
discussed the validity of Article 31-B when read with the Ninth Schedule where we found
that government had been misusing those provisions which were one used for the essential
protection of a few land reforms only with the ultimate aim of socio-economic welfare of
the country as the government had been exploiting the provisions to introduce some acts
that weren’t related to the land reforms in its entirety and thus led to criticisms by some of
26

27

28
the known scholars and major leaders as well. The judicial review under Article 13 of the
constitution is one of the major enshrined essential which cannot be restricted by a few
amendments made by the majority governments as it is the only way to challenge a
legislation in the court of law if it causing exploitation and excesses which is ultra vires of
the provisions of the Constitution, and thus, provides an authority to the common people
for the redressal of their disputes. Thus, the same power cannot be taken away as it serves
as one of the foundational pillars of the Indian Judiciary.