Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965): Parliament’s Power to Amend the Constitution — What the Supreme Court Ruled
Table of Contents
Introduction
The Sajjan Singh case of 1965 is a critical link in the chain of constitutional judgments on Parliament’s power to amend fundamental rights. Decided just four years before Golaknath, this case reaffirmed the position established in Shankari Prasad — that Parliament has unlimited power to amend the Constitution, including fundamental rights, under Article 368. But two judges dissented, planting the seeds of doubt that would bloom fully in Golaknath. For any law student studying constitutional amendments in India, the Sajjan Singh case is an essential milestone.
Case Details at a Glance
| Case Name | Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Year | 1965 |
| Citation | AIR 1965 SC 845 |
| Bench / Judges | 5-Judge Constitution Bench (CJ P.B. Gajendragadkar and others) |
| Legal Area | Constitutional Law — Amendment of Fundamental Rights |
| Main Issue | Whether the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964, is valid |
| Final Decision | Amendment upheld; Parliament has power to amend fundamental rights under Article 368 |
| Important Legal Principle | Constitutional amendments are not ‘law’ under Article 13(2); Shankari Prasad reaffirmed |
Background
The Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964, was enacted by Parliament to insert forty-four new statutes into the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution. The Ninth Schedule was created by the First Amendment in 1951 to protect land reform laws from fundamental rights challenges, particularly from landowners claiming that property acquisition violated Articles 19(1)(f) and 31.
The State of Rajasthan had passed several land reform laws that were included in the Ninth Schedule through the Seventeenth Amendment. Large landowners in Rajasthan challenged the amendment, arguing that Parliament lacked the power to amend fundamental rights and that the amendment violated their property rights.
Facts of the Case
Sajjan Singh was a large landowner (jagirdar) in Rajasthan whose lands were being taken over under State land reform legislation. The relevant laws had been placed in the Ninth Schedule by the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964, which immunised them from fundamental rights challenges.
Sajjan Singh challenged the validity of the Seventeenth Amendment before the Supreme Court, arguing that it violated his fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 31 of the Constitution. He also argued that the amendment effectively amended Article 31C and other provisions, requiring ratification by State legislatures — a procedure that had not been followed.
Issues Before the Court
- Whether Parliament has the constitutional power to amend fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution through Article 368.
- Whether the Seventeenth Amendment Act, 1964, is a valid exercise of Parliament’s amending power.
- Whether such an amendment constitutes ‘law’ for the purposes of Article 13(2).
- Whether the amendment required ratification by State legislatures under the proviso to Article 368.
Arguments by the Parties
The petitioners argued, consistent with the position of large landowners since the First Amendment, that fundamental rights are sacrosanct and cannot be amended even by Parliament under Article 368. They relied on Article 13(2) and argued that a constitutional amendment that abridges fundamental rights is unconstitutional.
The Union of India relied on the Shankari Prasad ruling, arguing that the distinction between ‘law’ (ordinary legislation) and ‘constitutional amendment’ is settled law. Parliament’s constituent power under Article 368 is unlimited, and there is no provision in the Constitution that exempts fundamental rights from the amending power.
Judgment of the Court
The Supreme Court, by a 3:2 majority, upheld the Seventeenth Amendment and reaffirmed the Shankari Prasad ruling. The majority held that Parliament has unlimited power to amend the Constitution, including fundamental rights, under Article 368. A constitutional amendment is not ‘law’ within the meaning of Article 13(2).
However, the significance of the Sajjan Singh case lies as much in the minority opinions as in the majority ruling. Justices J.R. Mudholkar and M. Hidayatullah dissented. Justice Mudholkar raised the profound question of whether certain fundamental features of the Constitution — what we now know as the ‘basic structure’ — could be amended by Parliament at all. Justice Hidayatullah similarly expressed doubts.
These dissenting opinions, though in the minority, anticipated the Golaknath ruling (1967) and ultimately the Kesavananda Bharati Basic Structure Doctrine (1973).
Ratio Decidendi
- Parliament has full power under Article 368 to amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights.
- The word ‘law’ in Article 13(2) does not include constitutional amendments made under Article 368.
- The Seventeenth Amendment Act, 1964, is constitutionally valid.
- (Dissent) There may be certain fundamental features of the Constitution that cannot be amended even under Article 368.
Legal Principles Explained
The Sajjan Singh case reinforced the principle from Shankari Prasad that constitutional amendments and ordinary laws are categorically different. Parliament acts as a constituent body (maker of the Constitution) when exercising power under Article 368, and as a legislature (maker of ordinary laws) when exercising power under other provisions.
The Ninth Schedule, which protects certain laws from judicial review on fundamental rights grounds, was upheld as a valid constitutional device. However, the Supreme Court later held in I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973 (the date of the Kesavananda Bharati judgment) are subject to judicial review if they damage the basic structure of the Constitution.
Importance of the Case
- Reaffirmed Parliament’s unlimited amending power — building on Shankari Prasad.
- The dissenting opinions planted the intellectual seed for the Basic Structure Doctrine.
- Upheld land reform legislation, advancing agrarian justice goals.
- Served as an important precedent that was later overruled by Golaknath (1967) and further modified by Kesavananda Bharati (1973).
Critical Analysis
The majority opinion in Sajjan Singh was legally sound within the framework of Shankari Prasad. However, the dissents reveal the emerging tension in Indian constitutional law: should Parliament have unlimited power to reshape the Constitution’s basic commitments?
The case illustrates the evolving nature of constitutional interpretation. What the majority took as settled in 1965 was challenged head-on in 1967 (Golaknath) and eventually resolved — with nuance — in 1973 (Kesavananda Bharati). The Sajjan Singh case is, therefore, not just a case about land reform. It is a case about who ultimately controls the Constitution — Parliament or the courts.
Illustrations and Examples
Think of the Constitution as a club’s rulebook. Shankari Prasad said the club’s committee (Parliament) can change any rule, including the fundamental rules. Sajjan Singh said the same. But in Sajjan Singh, two committee members said: wait — some rules are so fundamental that even the committee cannot change them without undermining the club’s very purpose. This dissenting view eventually became the majority position in Kesavananda Bharati.
Key Takeaways
| Key Point | Detail |
| Case Name | Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965) |
| Amendment Challenged | Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964 |
| Majority View | Parliament has unlimited power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 |
| Dissenting View | Fundamental features may limit Parliament’s amending power |
| Later Development | Majority view overruled in Golaknath (1967); Dissent became part of Basic Structure Doctrine in Kesavananda (1973) |
| Exam Relevance | CLAT, LLB, judiciary exams, constitutional law papers |
Conclusion
The Sajjan Singh case is the bridge between Shankari Prasad (1951) and Golaknath (1967). It reaffirmed Parliament’s unlimited amending power but introduced the first judicial whisper that some constitutional features may be beyond amendment. For law students, this case illustrates how constitutional law evolves — not through sudden breaks, but through a gradual accumulation of ideas, doubts, and dissents.
FAQs
Q: What was the Sajjan Singh case about?
A: It was a 1965 Supreme Court case that challenged the validity of the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964, on the ground that Parliament cannot amend fundamental rights.
Q: What did the Supreme Court hold in Sajjan Singh?
A: The Court upheld the amendment by a 3:2 majority, reaffirming that Parliament has unlimited power to amend the Constitution including fundamental rights under Article 368.
Q: Why are the dissenting opinions in Sajjan Singh important?
A: Justice Mudholkar’s dissent raised the concept of unamendable fundamental features — anticipating the Basic Structure Doctrine of 1973.
Q: Was Sajjan Singh later overruled?
A: Yes, the majority position was overruled by Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967). The basic structure concept from the dissent was accepted in Kesavananda Bharati (1973).
Q: What is the Ninth Schedule of the Indian Constitution?
A: The Ninth Schedule was created by the First Constitutional Amendment (1951) and contains laws that are immune from challenge on grounds of fundamental rights violation.
Legal References
• Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan – Indian Kanoon
• Article 368 – Constitution of India – India Code
• Constitution (17th Amendment) Act, 1964
At The Law School Hub, we simplify case laws, legal acts, and legal concepts for law students and legal readers. Want to read more useful legal blogs? Visit The Law School Hub for more such informational Blogs.
