CASE ANALYSIS:

SAJJAN SINGH V/S STATE OF RAJASTHAN,

AIR (1965) SC 845

PRESENTING TO:
DR. RAJINDER K. RANDHAWA MA’AM
BY:-
RIYA JAIN
BBA-LLB (5B)
5751103518
 INTRODUCTION
• There are some basic features of Constitution of India which cannot be amended because they are
most crucial part of the Indian Constitution.
• Justice Khanna has explained that Fundamental Rights are the key features which have been granted to
all the citizen of the Country, before the proposition of the basic structure, any part of the Constitution
inclusive of Fundamental Rights were amendable by the Parliament through Article 368 of the
Constitution of India.
• The Constitution of India has basic features, this concept was first theorized in the year 1964 by Justice
J.R. Mudholkar in this case.
• He mentioned that it is matter for consideration that making a change in a basic feature of the
Constitution of India can be regarded merely as an amendment or would it be, in effect, rewriting a
part of the Constitution; and if the latter, would it be within the purview of Article 368 .
 FACTS OF THE CASE
• Seventeenth Amendment Act  protects certain acts that are passed by the State Legislatures by
including them in the Ninth Schedule under Article 31B which might be assailed by Articles 14, 19 
and 31 of the Constitution of India.
• The  17th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1964 was challenged before the Apex Court of India on the
ground that it affected the powers that are prescribed under Article 226 and has not followed the
special procedure as laid down under Article 368 of the Constitution of India.
• The question of Shankari Prasad  Case was again raised whether the fundamental rights can be
amended or not using Art. 368.
• The Ninth Schedule consists of certain statutes relating to the property and the specialty of the
Ninth schedule was that it is not subjected to judicial review and because of that, right to judicial
review was taken away which is one of the basic features of the constitution. 
 ISSUES FRAMED

• Whether changing a fundamental element of the Constitution

can be considered merely an amendment or rewriting a portion
of the Constitution?
• Whether parliament has power to amend the fundamental rights
in the purview of Article 368?
 CONTENTIONS
Appellant’s contention
• The major argument was that the method required by the proviso should have been followed when altering the
relevant provisions of the Constitution.
• Whether the Amendment Act, in so far as it purports to take away or abridge the fundamental rights conferred
by Part III of the Constitution, falls within the prohibition of Art. 13(2) and whether Arts. 31A and 31B seek to
make changes in Arts. 132, 136, or 226 or in any of the Lists in the Seventh Schedule, and thus must satisfy the
requirements of the proviso to Art. 368.
This Court dismissed both of these arguments.
Respondent’s contention
• The respondents contended that the suit is premature and liable to be dismissed.
 JUDGEMENT BY THE SUPREME
COURT
• The decision was given by Five Judges Constitutional Bench in the ratio of 3:2.
• The SC held that Article 368 of the Indian Constitution empowers the Parliament to amend any article of
the Constitution and hence 17th CAA was valid.
• Once again it was said that the Article 13(2) is just limited to the ordinary laws and not with the
constitutional amendment whereas the scope of article 368 is limited to constitutional law.
• According to the majority decision it was held that Parliament has the power to amend fundamental
rights of the people even if it violates them.
• Majority decided that Land Reforms act is constitutionally valid and rejected all the petitions by the
petitioners.
 AFTER EFFECTS OF THE CASE
• This judgment was criticized to no extent as the decision was given in favour of
government instead of protecting the fundamental rights of the people.
• Encouraged and emboldened by the powerful dissent in Sajjan Singh Case, petitions
were filed for reconsideration of the matter by a specially constituted eleven judges
Bench in Golak Nath v. State of Punjab AIR 1967 SC 1643.
• The majority of 6:5 overruled the previous judgements given in case of Shankari
Prasad v. UOI and in case of Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan and held that Parliament
had no power to abridge or take away any fundamental right even by an amendment
to the Constitution.
• Held that an amendment is also a law and falls within the meaning of Article 13.
• And Article 368 only contained procedure for amendment, and power to amend is
derived from articles 245, 246 and 248.
 CONCLUSION

• The importance and significance of fundamental rights must be acknowledged,

and the guarantee of fundamental rights to citizens contained in Part III’s relevant
provisions can rightly be described as the very foundation and cornerstone of the
democratic way of life ushered by the Constitution.
• The Constitution specifies three modes of the amendment, and even if the
provisions of Art. 368 grant Parliament the power to amend the Constitution, it
must be determined whether that power can be exercised regarding any of the
Constitution’s basic features as long as the preamble remains unamended.
THANK YOU!
…