Shankari Prasad Vs. Union of India .

This case was result of the ongoing struggles between the judiciary for sovereignty in independent
India. Under this case question was raised of whether the fundamental rights can be amended under
Article 368 by the parliament or not.

The major augment that was brought forward was that Article 13 prohibits the enactment of law
abridging the Fundamental Right.

Verdict:
● The Supreme court precluded that the ability to alter the Constitution under Article 368
additionally incorporated the ability to correct basic rights and law� in Article 13(2)
incorporates just a common law made in exercise of the administrative powers and does
exclude sacred revision which is made in exercise of constituent forces.
●
● The court applies the standard of Harmonic Construction as there is a contention between
article 368 and article 13.
●
● In this manner, the court maintained the legitimacy of the first Constitutional (Amendment)
Act, 1951 and the petitions were excused with costs.

Implications Of Judgement
● Fundamental rights, the basic human rights are enforceable. These fundamental rights are
protected by the court of law by issuing writs.
● Though under Article 352 and 356, the fundamental rights or some parts of them can be
suspended during emergency yet they can be amended by Parliament.
● The constitutional validity of first amendment (1951), which curtailed the right to property,
was challenged.
● The SC ruled out that the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 also included
the power to amend fundamental rights and that the word law� in Article 13 (8) includes
only an ordinary law made in exercise of the legislative powers and does not include
Constitutional amendment which is made in exercise of constituent power. Therefore, a
Constitutional amendment will be valid even if it abridges or takes any of the fundamental
rights