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

Citation: [1952] 1 S.C.R. 89 · Decided: 05-10-1951 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HARILAL JEKISUNDAS KANIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

..- . 
I 
S;C.R .. 
SUPREME COURT REPO.RTS 
89 
Kharalripur on . the allegation _ that ·Taluk Kakwara 
· was alienable with "the consent of the Zami1c1dar. 
Ip our judgment the final conclusions arrived at by 
Mr. Justice Shearer and Mr. Justice Chatterjee are 
clearly right and this appeal must be dismissed with 
costs. 
A ppe(Jl dismissed. 
Agent for the appellant : I. N. Shroff. 
Agent for the respondents: S. P. Verma . 
SRI SANKAR! PRASAD SINGH DEO 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ST ATE OF BIHAR 
(And Other Cases); 
[HARILAL KANIA c. J., PATANJALI SASTRI! 
MuKHE!lJEA, 
DAs AND 
CHANDRASEKHARA 
AIYAR JJ.] 
Constitution ·(First Amendment) Act, 1951, Arts, 31A, 31B-
Validity-Constitution 
of India, 1950, Arts. 
13(2), 
368, 379, 
392-Provisional 
Parliament-Power 
to 
amend 
Constitution-
Constitution (Removal of Difficulties) Order Ng. 2 of 1950-Validity 
-Amendment of Constitution-Procedure-Bill amended by Legis-
lature-Amendment 
curtailing 
fundpmental 
rights-Amendment 
affecting land-Validity of Amending Act. 
The Constitution (First 
Amendment) 'Act, 1951, which has 
inserted, inter alia, Arts. 31A and 31B in the Constitution of 
India is riot ultra vires or unconstitutional. 
The provisional Parliament is competent to exercise the power 
of amending the Constitution under Art. 368. 
The fact that the 
said article refers to the two Houses of the Parliament and the 
President separately and not to the Parliament, does 
not lead to 
the inference that the body 
which is invested with the power to 
amend is not the Parliament but a different body consisting of 
the two Houses. 
. 
The words "all the powers confer{ed by the provisions of this 
Constitution ori 
Parliament': in Art. 379 are not confined to such 
powers as 
could be exercised by · the provisional Parliament con-
sisting of a single chamber, but are wide enough to include the 
power to amend the Constitution conferred by Art. 368. 
The Constitution (Removal of Difficulties} Order No. 2 made 
by the President on 
the 26th January, 1950, which purports to 
adapt Art. 368 · by omitting "either House of" and "in each 
House" and substituting "Parliament" for "that House" is not 
. 12 
1951 
. Thakur 
Rudreshwari 
Prasad Sinha 
v. 
·srimati Rani 
Probhabhati 
and others; 
1951 
Oct. 5. 
'1 
1951 
Sankari Pra.ratl 
Singh Deo 
v. 
Union of India 
anti 
.State of Bihar. 
90 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1952] 
beyond the powers conferred on him by Art. 392 and ultra vires. 
There is nothing in Art. 392 to suggest that the President should 
wait, 
before 
adapting a 
particular 
article, 
till 
the oc.casion 
actually arose for the provisional 
Parliament 
to 
exercise the 
power conferred by the article. 
The view that Art. 368 is a complete code in itself in respect 
of the procedure provided by it and does not contemplate any 
ainendment of a Bill for amendment of the Constitution after it 
has been introduced, and that if the Bill is amended during its 
passage through the House, the amendment Act cannot be said 
to have been passed in conformity with the procedure prescribed 
by Art. 368 and would be invalid, is erroneous. 
Although "Ia,v" must ordinarily 
include 
constitutional law 
there is a clear demarcation between ordinary law tvhich is made 
in 
the 
exercise of legislative power 
and 
constitutional 
law, 
which 
is made in the 
exercise of constituent power. 
In. the 
context of Art. 13, "law" must'be taken to mean rules or regula-
tions made in exercise of 
ordinary legislative 
po\ver and not 
amendments to the constitution 
made in the 
exercise of consti-
tuent power with the result that Art. 13(2) does not affect amend-
ments made under Art. 368. 
Articles 31A and 
31B inserted in the 
Constitution by the 
Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, do not curtail the 
powers of the High Court 
under Art. 
226 to issue 
writs for 
enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III or of the 
Supreme Court under Arts. 132 and 136 to entertain appeals 
from orders issuing or refusing such writs; but they only exclude 
from the purvie\v of 
Part III certain classes of cases. 
These 
articles therefore do not require ratification under cl. (b) of the 
proviso to Art. 368. 
Articles 3!A and 31B are not invalid on the ground that they 
relate to 
land \vhich is a matter covered by the State List (item 
18 of List II) 
as these articles are essentially amendments of the 
Constitution, 
and 
Parliament alone 
has 
the power 
to 
enact 
them. 
ORIGINAL 
JUR

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.