Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1965 SC 845)

This case explains the reach of Article 368. The Court said Parliament can amend the Constitution, even parts linked to Fundamental Rights. It also discussed the special shield of the Ninth Schedule for land reform laws.

An important thought also appears here: some parts of the Constitution may be so basic that changing them looks like rewriting. This thought later grew into the famous “basic structure” discussion.

• Are deep changes in core parts still “amendments” under Article 368?
• Can putting laws in the Ninth Schedule block review under Articles 14, 19, and 31?

The Court held that Article 368 gives Parliament power to amend any Article. Article 13 deals with ordinary laws, not constitutional amendments.

By majority, the Court said Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights. The Ninth Schedule device to protect certain land reform laws was accepted.

A judge also voiced a key thought: changing a basic feature may not be a simple amendment. This seed later shaped constitutional law debates.

• Article 368 authorises amendments to any part of the Constitution.
• Article 13 restricts ordinary laws, not amendments.
• Parliament can amend even Fundamental Rights (majority view).
• Ninth Schedule placement gives laws a protective cover from certain rights-based attacks.

This ruling explains the early understanding of amendment power and set the stage for later debates on “basic structure”. It shows how Parliament’s power and court review meet and balance.

Mnemonic: A-13-9 — Amend (368), 13 not hit, Ninth shield.

1. Check Power: Is Article 368 followed?
2. Check Scope: Is it an amendment (not ordinary law)?
3. Check Shield: Is the law in the Ninth Schedule?

Article 368

Provision that sets how the Constitution can be amended.

Article 13

Says laws that violate Fundamental Rights are void; aimed at ordinary laws.

Ninth Schedule

A list of laws protected from certain rights-based challenges, often land reforms.