Font size:
Print
Abolition of Zamindari System
Context:
Kashipur (a village in West Bengal’s Purulia district), home to two small coal mines and a run-down European-style palace built in 1913 by its former zamindars. The 1951 landmark constitutional case began here, challenging the abolition of the zamindari system.
More on News
- Sankari Prasad Singh Deo, the zamindar from Kashipur, moved the Supreme Court against the abolition of the zamindari system.
- In 1950, just months after the Indian Constitution came into effect, the Patna High Court struck down the Bihar State Management of Estates and Tenures Act, 1949, as unconstitutional, citing a violation of zamindars’ right to equality due to lack of “just” compensation.
Raja Sankari Prasad Singh Deo was born in 1919 as the son of Raja Kalyani Prasad Singh Deo, the zamindar of the Panchkote estate. Before its abolition, the estate covered an expansive 2,800 square miles across what was then the Manbhum district, later part of Purulia in West Bengal. Sankari Prasad was not alone in his legal battle — similar land reforms were imposed on zamindars in other states.
Government’s Response: The First Amendment(1951)
- Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru introduced the First Amendment to the Constitution before challenging the ruling.
- The amendment brought significant changes, including restrictions on free speech, provisions for caste-based reservations, and most notably, Articles 31A and 31B.
- Article 31A ensured that no land acquisition law could be deemed unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated fundamental rights. This provision effectively blocked the zamindars’ ability to claim violations of their rights when their land was expropriated by the state.
- Article 31B introduced the Ninth Schedule, placing certain laws, including the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, beyond judicial review.
The Supreme Court Ruling (1951)
- Sankari Prasad’s challenge was based on two key arguments:
- Did the provisional Parliament have the power to amend the Constitution?
- Did the amendment violate Article 13(2), which barred laws that curtail fundamental rights?
- A five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court, on October 5, 1951, ruled in favour of the government, distinguishing between ordinary law (which cannot violate fundamental rights) and constitutional amendments (which can).
The Zamindari System and Legal Strategies
- Sankari Prasad Singh Deo, a former zamindar of Panchkote Estate, was among many landlords affected across India, including in Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Maharashtra, and Hyderabad.
- His legal team, led by Prafulia Ranjan Das, also advised distributing family estates to avoid state expropriation.
Concerns & Criticism of the Amendment
- Nehru’s Perspective: Jawaharlal Nehru criticized lawyers for exploiting legal loopholes, stating: “This magnificent Constitution that we had framed was later kidnapped and purloined by lawyers.”
- While land reforms had popular support, there was concern that the First Amendment allowed Parliament to curtail fundamental rights through amendments.
- Granville Austin, in his book Working a Democratic Constitution, noted that critics viewed these changes as increasing executive power at the cost of individual rights.
Later Challenges and the Evolution of the Right to Property
- The 1951 ruling upheld land reforms, but the debate over fundamental rights continued.
- In 1964, the Supreme Court reaffirmed this decision in Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, but doubts were raised by Justices M. Hidayatullah and J.R. Mudholkar.
- In 1967, the Supreme Court overturned this interpretation in I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab, ruling that fundamental rights cannot be amended.
- The debate over the right to property culminated in the 1974 Kesavananda Bharati case, which established the basic structure doctrine, ensuring that even constitutional amendments cannot violate fundamental rights.
