SRI SANKARI PRASAD SINGH DEO versus UNION OF INDIA AND STATE OF BIHAR

SRI SANKARI PRASAD SINGH DEO versus UNION OF INDIA AND STATE OF BIHAR

Amendments to the Constitution made in exercise of constituent power under Article 368 are not restricted by Article 13(2); 'law' in Article 13(2) refers to ordinary legislation, not constitutional amendments. The provisional Parliament was competent under Article 379 to amend the Constitution, and the procedure in Article 368 does not prohibit amendments to the amendment bill during passage. The adaptation of Article 368 under Article 392 was valid. Articles 31A and 31B did not require further ratification nor did they affect the judicial power of the higher courts; they were validly enacted.

Parties
Petitioner: Sri Sankari Prasad Singh Deo; Respondent: Union of India; Respondent: State of Bihar; Respondent: State of Uttar Pradesh; Respondent: State of Madhya Pradesh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
05 October 1951
Procedural Posture
Petitions Under Article 32 of the Constitution / Original Jurisdiction, Judgment on Merits
Outcome
Petitions dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Constitution, Fundamental Rights, Validity of Constitutional Amendments, Power of Parliament to Amend Constitution, Article 368 Procedures, Article 13(2), Article 31 a and 31 B, Zamindari Abolition, Seventh Schedule State and Union Powers
Constitutional Law Amendment of Constitution Fundamental Rights Validity of Constitutional Amendments Power of Parliament to Amend Constitution Article 368 Procedures Article 13(2) Article 31 a and 31 B +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sri Sankari Prasad Singh Deo

Petitioner

Union of India

Respondent

State of Bihar

Respondent

State of Uttar Pradesh

Respondent

State of Madhya Pradesh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Petitions Under Article 32 of the Constitution / Original Jurisdiction, Judgment on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, inserting Articles 31A and 31B, is ultra vires or unconstitutional
  2. 2 Whether the provisional Parliament was competent to amend the Constitution under Article 368
  3. 3 Whether the procedure in Article 368 was followed and the Amendment properly passed

Ratio Decidendi

Amendments to the Constitution made in exercise of constituent power under Article 368 are not restricted by Article 13(2); 'law' in Article 13(2) refers to ordinary legislation, not constitutional amendments. The provisional Parliament was competent under Article 379 to amend the Constitution, and the procedure in Article 368 does not prohibit amendments to the amendment bill during passage. The adaptation of Article 368 under Article 392 was valid. Articles 31A and 31B did not require further ratification nor did they affect the judicial power of the higher courts; they were validly enacted.

Court Disposition

Petitions dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, upheld and declared not ultra vires or unconstitutional.