In a new nation, when abolition of zamindari system was challenged in Supreme Court

Barely 5 months into the moving of the caller Constitution, connected June 5, 1950, the Patna High Court had struck down the Bihar State Management of Estates and Tenures Act, 1949, arsenic unconstitutional. Chief Justice J G Shearer, an Englishman who had stayed backmost aft Independence, and 2 different judges had said the instrumentality violated the zamindars’ close to equality since their onshore was taken without a “just” compensation. “Any instrumentality that would autumn foul of cardinal rights is unconstitutional,” they had said.

The zamindars had won the archetypal round.

In response, past Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, adjacent earlier challenging the ruling, brought successful the First Amendment to the Constitution. “If the Constitution itself comes successful our way, past surely it is clip to alteration that Constitution,” Nehru had written successful a missive to Chief Ministers earlier introducing the amendment.

Changes nether the First Amendment

Among different changes — restricting escaped code and providing for caste-based reservations — the First Amendment besides introduced Articles 31A and 31B. The archetypal proviso stated that nary onshore acquisition instrumentality would beryllium deemed void connected the grounds that it violated immoderate of the cardinal rights. In 1 swoop, the zamindars could not assertion that immoderate of their cardinal rights were violated erstwhile their property was expropriated by the state. The 2nd proviso brought successful the Ninth Schedule and the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, was added to it. Laws placed successful the Ninth Schedule cannot beryllium challenged for reasons of violating immoderate cardinal close protected nether the Constitution.

Sankari Prasad’s arguments were not straight against the onshore betterment instrumentality but the wider implications of the First Amendment. First, did the provisional Parliament, pending the archetypal Lok Sabha elections, person the competence to amend the Constitution? Even if it did, could Parliament interruption Article 13(2) of the Constitution, which prohibited making “laws” that would derogate cardinal rights? The proviso besides fundamentally provides for judicial reappraisal wherever a tribunal tin onslaught down instrumentality that is deemed unconstitutional.

Shankari Prasad Singh Deo’s grandson Anshul Rajawat (left) and his cousin, Bhagawati Prasad Singh Deo (right). (Express Photos by Partha Paul)

On October 5, 1951, a five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court, successful a textual interpretation, decided successful favour of the government. The Supreme Court said, “There is simply a wide demarcation betwixt mean law, which is made successful workout of legislative power, and law law, which is made successful workout of constituent power.”

This meant, portion the Parliament cannot marque a statutory instrumentality that violates cardinal rights, nary specified regularisation would use to it, erstwhile amending the Constitution.

Who was Sankari Prasad

Born successful 1919, Raja Sankari Prasad was the lad of Raja Kalyani Prasad Singh Deo, the erstwhile zamindars of the property of Panchkote. The property was a portion of Manbhum, a territory successful eastbound India during the British Raj and aboriginal became Purulia successful West Bengal.

His descendants, who spoke to The Indian Express, said the property was dispersed implicit 2,800 quadrate miles earlier abolition. While Sankari Prasad was the pb petitioner, akin laws applied to different zamindaris successful Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, the Panch Mahals Mehwassi strategy successful Gujarat; the Paragana and Kulkarni Watan strategy successful Maharashtra and the Jagir strategy successful Hyderabad.

Veteran lawyer Prafulia Ranjan Das, the member of Deshbandhu Chittaranjan Das, advised the zamindars of Panchkote. While helium appeared for Sankari Prasad earlier the Supreme Court, Das, arsenic per household accounts, besides advised him to administer the property among household members arsenic “maintenance” to debar being expropriated by the state.

Shankari Prasad Singh Deo’s grandson plans to person the palace successful Kashipur into a hotel. (Express Photo by Partha Paul)

“So agelong arsenic you tin support them together, you tin bask everything. My gramps besides created spiritual trusts anyway,” Bhagwati Prasad Singh Deo, 84, Sankari Prasad’s cousin, tells The Indian Express.

“Kashipur colony is inactive location to 23 extended families of the Panchkote rajas. The Panchkote raj families inactive person capable landholdings, not warranting them to instrumentality up immoderate different jobs too immoderate business,” helium adds.

PM Nehru, possibly alert of however ineligible loopholes were exploited, had said portion introducing the First Amendment, “Somehow, we person recovered that this magnificent Constitution that we had framed was aboriginal kidnapped and purloined by lawyers.”

Land reforms and voices of dissent

Even arsenic fashionable enactment for onshore reforms continued, voices of dissent connected the First Amendment and the urgency with which it was introduced grew louder. The accusation of the Sankari Prasad ruling was that cardinal rights are not inalienable and tin beryllium tinkered with done law amendments.

Granville Austin, the writer of the governmental past of the Indian Constitution, wrote successful his book, Working a Democratic Constitution, that a paper editorial had said the “changes seemed animated much by a tendency to conserve the powerfulness of the enforcement than the rights of the individuals”.

In a 2022 lecture, Justice Rohinton Nariman, a erstwhile Supreme Court judge, had enactment into discourse the interaction of this ruling. “We had conscionable had the World War II earlier us, we had conscionable had the Weimar Constitution trampled by ft by Hitler and past the caller German Constitution made them (fundamental rights) thing which (the) legislature cannot touch.”

Inside the European-style Kashipur Palace, built successful 1913, successful West Bengal’s Purulia district. (Express Photo by Partha Paul)

Speaking to The Indian Express, Justice Ravindra Bhat, a erstwhile Supreme Court judge, said that though onshore reforms was an exigent request of a caller federation to execute a semblance of equality, it ne'er truly took off. “Despite the legislative intent, the reforms were ne'er afloat implemented. The satraps of powerfulness did not fto that happen. Even the Supreme Court successful immoderate ways impeded the process by bringing successful the thought of ‘just compensation’ to a zamindar whose onshore was taken. The Court looked astatine the mode we present look astatine onshore acquisition by the state. But the aforesaid tribunal was aboriginal precise supportive erstwhile it came to onshore acquisition for modernisation and infrastructure,” helium said.

Buoyed up by this interpretation, much law amendments and litigation involving onshore reforms and spot continued for implicit 14 years. Legislation played drawback up for each effort to evade onshore reforms — bringing successful much laws connected onshore ceiling, redistribution of expropriated onshore to the tiller and prohibiting zamindars from buying backmost onshore from the tiller. In 1964, different five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court, successful Sajjan Singh v State of Rajasthan, agreed with the 1951 ruling. However, 2 judges — Justices M Hidayatullah and J R Mudholkar — expressed doubts implicit whether the Sankari Prasad ruling was rightly decided, and a larger seat yet reversed it successful 1967. A aboriginal portion of the series, volition absorption connected the 1967 lawsuit I C Golaknath v State of Punjab. The statement connected close to property, possibly the astir contested cardinal right, settled lone successful the adjacent decade. The tinkering with cardinal rights, not conscionable spot but besides the sacrosanct close to beingness and idiosyncratic liberty came nether menace during the Emergency.

What began with Sankari Prasad’s case, yet ended with the 1974 Kesavananda Bharati ruling, establishing the basal operation doctrine. The ruling held that adjacent law amendments cannot interruption the “basic structure” which includes cardinal rights. But onshore reforms passed the test, since the close to spot itself was not deemed to beryllium portion of that basal structure.

Sankari Prasad died successful 1956, earlier this statement was settled, leaving his property to his son. Back successful Kashipur, his grandson Anshul Rajawat is looking to person the palace into a edifice and conserve it for his adjacent generation.