Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1964) – Case Summary for Students

Quick Summary

Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1964) is an early Constitutional Law case where the Supreme Court upheld the 17th Constitutional Amendment. Parliament had updated Article 31A and placed 44 land reform laws into the Ninth Schedule to protect them from being struck down for violating Fundamental Rights.

Property holders affected by these land laws approached the Supreme Court. They argued that the amendment damaged their Fundamental Rights and the writ power of High Courts under Article 226, and therefore required State ratification under the proviso to Article 368.

The Court (by majority) held that Parliament has wide power to amend the Constitution, including Part III, and that a Constitutional Amendment is not a “law” under Article 13(2). However, Justice J.R. Mudholkar in his separate opinion questioned whether there are certain basic features of the Constitution that Parliament cannot change. This thought later grew into the basic structure doctrine in Kesavananda Bharati.

Issues Before the Court

• Whether the 17th Constitutional Amendment needed State ratification under the proviso to Article 368 because it indirectly affected the writ powers of High Courts under Article 226.
• Whether a Constitutional Amendment is “law” under Article 13(2), so that it cannot take away or abridge Fundamental Rights.
• Whether Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights in Part III, or whether there is any limitation on its amending power.

Rules / Legal Provisions

Article 368

Procedure and power of Parliament to amend the Constitution. Proviso requires State ratification if certain federal features are directly affected.

Article 13(2)

The State shall not make any law that takes away or abridges Fundamental Rights, and any such law is void to the extent of inconsistency.

Article 226

Power of High Courts to issue writs for enforcement of Fundamental Rights and for other purposes.

Article 31A & Ninth Schedule

Article 31A and the Ninth Schedule protect certain land reform and socio-economic laws from being struck down for violating Fundamental Rights.

Precedent: Sankari Prasad (1951)

Earlier case where the Supreme Court held that Constitutional Amendments are not “law” under Article 13 and that Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights.

Arguments – Petitioners vs State

Judgment – Majority View

The Supreme Court, by majority, upheld the 17th Constitutional Amendment and dismissed the petitions. The Court confirmed the earlier approach taken in Sankari Prasad.

• On Article 226 and proviso to Article 368: The Court held that the effect of the 17th Amendment on the writ powers of High Courts was only indirect and minor. Since there was no direct or substantial curtailment of Article 226, the proviso to Article 368 did not require State ratification.
• On Parliament’s amending power: The Court stated that Article 368 gives Parliament the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Part III. There is no express limitation in the text preventing amendments to Fundamental Rights.
• On Article 13(2): Following Sankari Prasad, the Court again held that the word “law” in Article 13(2) does not include a Constitutional Amendment. Therefore, Article 13 cannot be used to invalidate an amendment.
• On Ninth Schedule protection: The Court accepted that placing land reform laws into the Ninth Schedule and updating Article 31A was a valid way for Parliament to support socio-economic reforms.

The majority thus supported a broad amending power and placed heavy weight on the need for land reform and social justice.

Ratio Decidendi

• A Constitutional Amendment made under Article 368 is not “law” within Article 13(2), and therefore it can amend or affect Fundamental Rights.
• Parliament has the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Part III, as long as the procedure under Article 368 is properly followed.
• The proviso to Article 368 requiring State ratification applies only when an amendment directly and materially changes federal features such as the powers of High Courts. A merely incidental impact on Article 226 is not enough.

Justice Mudholkar’s Separate Opinion (Minority Concern)

Justice J.R. Mudholkar agreed with the result but raised a serious doubt. He asked whether Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is truly unlimited, or whether there is a “basic feature” or “basic structure” of the Constitution that even Parliament cannot touch. He treated the Constitution as a kind of sacred trust created by the people. Although this was not the binding ratio, it planted the seed that later grew into the basic structure doctrine in Kesavananda Bharati.

Why This Case Matters

• It confirmed the wide scope of Parliament’s amending power in the early years of the Constitution, including changes to Fundamental Rights.
• It strengthened the Ninth Schedule as a shield for land reform and socio-economic legislation against Fundamental Rights challenges.
• It showed the Court’s willingness, at that time, to support social justice measures even at the cost of some individual property rights.
• Justice Mudholkar’s opinion became the starting point for the basic structure debate, which later reshaped Constitutional Law in India.
• For exam and practice, the case forms a bridge between Sankari Prasad and Kesavananda Bharati, and is crucial to understanding how the law on amendments developed.

Key Takeaways for Students

1. Power to amend Fundamental Rights: The Court treated Fundamental Rights as open to amendment under Article 368, continuing the approach of Sankari Prasad.
2. Article 13(2) vs Constitutional Amendments: A Constitutional Amendment is not “law” under Article 13(2), so amendments are not blocked by that provision.
3. Proviso to Article 368 is narrow: State ratification is needed only when there is direct and heavy impact on specified federal provisions, not for every incidental effect.
4. Ninth Schedule as shield: Land reform laws gained strong protection from Fundamental Rights challenges by being placed in the Ninth Schedule.
5. Beginning of basic structure thinking: Justice Mudholkar’s doubts about unlimited amending power prepared the ground for the later basic structure doctrine.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Exam Hook

Use this simple mnemonic to remember Sajjan Singh:

“SAJ-JAN-AMEND”

• SAJ – Sajjan Singh continues Sankari Prasad.
• JAN – Parliament represents the jan (people) and can amend even Part III.
• AMEND – Amendment ≠ “law” under Article 13; 17th Amendment is valid.

3-Step Exam Hook (How to Start Your Answer)

1. Step 1 – Context: Start by saying that this is a 1964 Supreme Court case testing the 17th Constitutional Amendment and Parliament’s power to amend Fundamental Rights.
2. Step 2 – Core Holding: State that the Court upheld Parliament’s wide amending power and held that Constitutional Amendments are not “law” under Article 13(2).
3. Step 3 – Future Impact: Add that Justice Mudholkar’s opinion sowed the seed of the basic structure doctrine taken up later in Kesavananda Bharati.

IRAC Outline – Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Issue

Whether Parliament, under Article 368, can amend Fundamental Rights in Part III and whether the 17th Constitutional Amendment required State ratification due to its impact on High Court powers under Article 226.

Rule

Article 368 lays down the procedure and power to amend the Constitution. Article 13(2) bars the State from making “law” that takes away or abridges Fundamental Rights. The proviso to Article 368 requires State ratification when essential federal provisions are directly affected.

Application

The Court applied Article 368 to hold that Constitutional Amendments are a special form of constitutional power and are not covered by “law” in Article 13(2). The 17th Amendment only indirectly affected the writ powers of High Courts by validating land reform laws. This was not a direct attack on Article 226, so the proviso to Article 368 was not triggered. The Court again followed the reasoning in Sankari Prasad.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the 17th Constitutional Amendment, confirmed that Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368, and held that a Constitutional Amendment is not “law” under Article 13(2). Justice Mudholkar’s doubts about unlimited amending power later helped shape the basic structure doctrine.

Glossary – Simple Terms

Constitutional Amendment

A formal change or addition to the Constitution made by Parliament using the procedure in Article 368.

Ninth Schedule

A special list in the Constitution where certain laws are placed to give them extra protection from challenges based on Fundamental Rights.

Basic Structure

The idea that some core features of the Constitution, such as democracy and rule of law, cannot be destroyed even by an amendment. This idea was hinted at in this case and later accepted in Kesavananda Bharati.

Judicial Review

The power of courts to examine laws and strike them down if they violate the Constitution.

Ratification by States

Approval by at least one-half of the State Legislatures, required for certain types of Constitutional Amendments under the proviso to Article 368.

FAQs – Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Related Cases to Revise