Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965): Constitutional Amendment and Article 368 Explained

 

SAJJAN SINGH

V.

STATE OF RAJASTHAN

AIR 1965 SC 845; (1965)1 SCR 933

This judgement is based on the validity of constitutional amendment under article 368 of the Indian constitution.

 

Author- Ishika Narayan, B.A.LLB(Hons), Arya Kanya girls degree College, University of Allahabad, Prayagraj

ABSTRACT

The case of Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965)  addressed the constitutional validity of the seventeenth amendment act,1964. Which added several laws related to land reforms to the ninth schedule of the constitution. Thereby, shielding them from judicial review under part lll of the ( fundamental rights) of the constitution. The petitioner challenged the amendment of 1964 by arguing that fundamental rights can not be curtailed by constitutional amendment as it violated the basic features of the constitution.  In this case the supreme court  by 4:1 majority upheld the validity of the amendment. By ruling in parliament favour stating that parliament has the authority to amend any part of the constitution including fundamental rights under article 368. The court  gave its judgement by following the earlier precedent set in Shankari prasad v. The union of India (1951) case. Which had similarly upheld that parliament has the power to amend any part of the constitution including fundamental rights under article 368  of the constitution.

However, Justice J.R Mudholkar while concurring with the Majority, expressed serious doubts about whether parliament could amend the basic features of the constitution. His remarks were significant as they laid the conceptual foundation for the later development of the basic structure of doctrine.

 

PRIMARY DETAILS OF THE CASE

Case no.	Writ petition: no. 31&50 of 1964
Citation	AIR 1965 SC 846; (1965) 1 SCR 933
Jurisdiction	Supreme court
Bench	Chief justice P.B. Gajendragadkar,  justice A.K wanchoo, justice Raghubar Dayal, justice K.N. Ramaswami
Case decide on	11 October 1964
Petitioner	Maharajadhiraja Sajjan singh
Respondent	State of Rajasthan
Legal provisions	Article 31,  Article 39(b)(c), Article 13(2), Article 368,  Ninth schedule
Case summary prepared by	Ishika narayan

 

BRIEF FACT OF THE CASE

 

Sajjan singh v. State of Rajasthan case was brought before the court by Maharajadhiraja Sajjan singh the former ruler of the princely state of udaipur in Rajasthan. After independence India undertook major land  reforms to redistribute land and abolish the zamindari system. So many princely states and land owners including Maharajadhiraja Sajjan singh of udaipur were affected by these laws. As these laws curtailed their property rights and privileges. To protect these reforms from being struck down by courts for violating fundamental  rights. The government enacted the first and seventeenth constitutional amendment, which inserted certain land reforms law into the ninth schedule of the constitution. As law in the ninth schedule was protected from judicial review. Sajjan Singh challenged the seventeenth amendment act 1964 by claiming that it violated his fundamental rights - especially

The right to property under Article 31,  by placing land reforms law into the ninth schedule. He also argued that such an amendment affected the basic right of the citizens, and therefore it should be open for judicial review, or should require a more stringent process of enactment. But in this case the supreme court ruled in the favour of parliament by stating that parliament has the power to amend any part of the constitution including fundamental rights under article 368 of the constitution.

 

ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE CASE

 

These were the primary issue of the case:-

 

●       Scope of article 368

 

Whether the power to amend the constitution under article 368 includes the power to amend or take away fundamental rights.

 

 

●       Validity of the 17th amendment

 

Whether the 17th constitutional amendment which added certain land reform law to the ninth schedule was constitutionally valid. Especially if it affected the fundamental rights under part III of the constitution.

 

●       whether amendment that affect citizens right required amore stringent process or judicial review?

 

Should amendments affecting core rights be subject to judicial review or a referendum, or should they require a special procedure like Ratification of status.

 

●       Conflict with Article 13(2)

 

Whether a constitutional amendment can be considered a “law” under article 13(2) which prohibits the state from making any law that takes away fundamental rights. And  can be declared void if it violated those fundamental rights

 

 

ARGUMENT Of The PARTIES

 

Petitioner:- (Mr. Maharajadhiraja Sajjan Singh)

 

The petitioners challenged the validity of the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964, which amended Article 31A and included several state laws in the Ninth Schedule, thereby placing them beyond the scope of judicial review for violating fundamental rights. The petitioners, who were affected landowners, argued that the amendment infringed their rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. Their main contention was that the amendment violated the constitutional safeguards that protect citizens from arbitrary action and unjust deprivation of property. They argued that the amending power under Article 368 was not absolute and could not be used to override or abolish fundamental rights, which form the core of the Constitution. Specifically, they claimed that a constitutional amendment must fall within the definition of "law" as stated in Article 13(2), which prohibits the State from making any law that takes away or abridges the rights conferred by Part III. Therefore, they contended that the Seventeenth Amendment, to the extent it violated fundamental rights, was invalid and unenforceable.

 

 

Respondent:- (The state of Rajasthan)

 

The Respondents defended the validity of the amendment, asserting that a constitutional amendment is distinct from ordinary legislation and is not subject to Article 13(2). They maintained that Article 368 provides Parliament with the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including the provisions contained in Part III. The respondents emphasized that constitutional amendments, being acts of constituent power, are not controlled by the restrictions placed on legislative powers, and hence Article 13(2) does not apply to them. They also relied on the precedent set in Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951), in which the Supreme Court had held that constitutional amendments do not fall within the scope of “law” under Article 13 and therefore cannot be invalidated for violating fundamental rights. The respondents argued that the purpose of the Seventeenth Amendment was to protect laws enacted for agrarian reform and socio-economic progress, and such protection was necessary to fulfill the goals set out in the Directive Principles of State Policy. The central issue in the case, therefore, was whether Parliament's power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 includes the authority to amend or curtail fundamental rights, and whether such amendments are subject to the limitations imposed by Article 13(2).

 

LEGAL ASPECTS INVOLVES

 

The following legal aspects considered are mentioned below:-

 

1. Scope of Article 368 (Amendment Power):

Whether Parliament’s power under Article 368 includes the authority to amend Fundamental Rights in Part III of the Constitution.

 

 

2. Interpretation of Article 13(2):

Whether a constitutional amendment is considered "law" under Article 13(2), which prohibits the State from making any law that abridges or takes away Fundamental Rights.

 

 

3. Validity of the 17th Constitutional Amendment (1964):

The amendment modified Article 31A and added several land reform laws to the Ninth Schedule, protecting them from being challenged for violating Fundamental Rights.

 

 

4. Judicial Review and Ninth Schedule Laws:

Whether laws placed in the Ninth Schedule through constitutional amendment can still be reviewed by courts if they violate Fundamental Rights.

 

 

5. Doctrine of Limited Government:

Whether the amending power of Parliament is limited by the basic structure or core values of the Constitution, such as Fundamental Rights.

 

 

6. Precedent from Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951):

The earlier view that constitutional amendments are not "law" under Article 13(2) was examined and reaffirmed by the majority in Sajjan Singh.

 

 

7. Separation of Powers and Constituent Power:

The distinction between constituent power (used for constitutional amendments) and ordinary legislative power (used to pass laws), and their respective limits.

 

 

8. Emerging Concern Over Unchecked Amendment Power:

Although the majority upheld the amendment, some judges (e.g., Justice Mudholkar) expressed concern that certain basic features of the Constitution may be beyond amendment, hinting at the later basic structure doctrine

 

JUDGEMENT

 

In Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964, by a majority. The Court held that a constitutional amendment enacted under Article 368 is not included within the meaning of “law” under Article 13(2) of the Constitution. Therefore, even if such an amendment affects or abridges the rights guaranteed under Part III (Fundamental Rights), it is not subject to being struck down under Article 13(2). The majority of the judges reaffirmed the earlier decision in Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951), which had taken the same view. The Court found that Parliament has the authority to amend any part of the Constitution, including the provisions relating to fundamental rights, by following the procedure laid down in Article 368. While Justices Mudholkar and Hidayatullah agreed with the majority on the outcome, they expressed concern about the possible implications of giving Parliament unrestricted power to amend the Constitution. Justice Mudholkar, in particular, raised the question of whether there might be certain basic features of the Constitution that are not amenable even by Parliament. Despite these concerns, the Court concluded that the Seventeenth Amendment was valid, and the petitions challenging it were dismissed.

 

IMPACT AND SIGNIFICANCE

 

The decision in Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan confirmed the view that constitutional amendments made under Article 368 are not subject to Article 13(2), and therefore cannot be challenged on the ground that they violate fundamental rights. This reinforced the position taken earlier in Shankari Prasad v. Union of India and maintained that Parliament had broad authority to amend any part of the Constitution, including provisions related to fundamental rights. However, the case is also significant because two judges—Justice Mudholkar and Justice Hidayatullah—questioned whether there might be implied limitations on Parliament’s amending power. These observations did not form the majority view but introduced the idea that certain features of the Constitution might be beyond amendment. This line of reasoning later became central in the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) decision, which established the basic structure doctrine. Therefore, while Sajjan Singh upheld parliamentary supremacy in constitutional amendments, it also contributed to the development of a more limited and structured interpretation of amendment powers in Indian constitutional law.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The Supreme Court in Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan upheld the constitutional validity of the Seventeenth Amendment, ruling that Parliament has the power under Article 368 to amend any part of the Constitution, including provisions related to fundamental rights. The Court held that a constitutional amendment is not “law” under Article 13(2), and therefore cannot be struck down for violating fundamental rights. Although the majority supported unrestricted amending power, two judges raised concerns about whether there could be inherent limits to Parliament’s authority. These concerns did not alter the outcome of the case but laid the foundation for later constitutional developments. The petitions challenging the amendment were dismissed, and the amendment remained in force.

Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965): Constitutional Amendment and Article 368 Explained

Explore the landmark case Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965) which upheld Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, under Article 368, while sowing the seeds for the future basic structure doctrine.

• Sajjan Singh case summary
• Constitutional Amendment Article 368
• 17th Amendment validity India
• Ninth Schedule Supreme Court
• Fundamental Rights vs Parliament Power

• Article 13(2) and constitutional law
• Basic structure of Constitution
• Shankari Prasad precedent
• Property rights and Ninth Schedule
• Indian land reform cases