Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965) is the Supreme Court judgment in which a 5-judge Constitution Bench upheld Parliament's power to amend fundamental rights under Article 368, reaffirming the position taken in Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951). Decided by a 3:2 majority, the case is notable not only for its holding but for the dissenting observations of Justice Hidayatullah and Justice Mudholkar, who planted the earliest seeds of what would later become the basic structure doctrine in Kesavananda Bharati (1973). This case is frequently tested in judiciary prelims and UPSC Law Optional examinations on the evolution of amendment power.

Case snapshot

Facts of the case

The petitioners were former rulers of princely states in Rajasthan who challenged the constitutional validity of the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964. This amendment inserted 44 additional statutes into the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution, thereby shielding them from challenge on the ground that they violated fundamental rights. The petitioners contended that the Seventeenth Amendment, insofar as it abridged fundamental rights under Part III, was void under Article 13(2) which provides that "the State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges" fundamental rights. The central question was whether Parliament's constituent power under Article 368 was subject to the limitation imposed by Article 13(2).

Issues before the court

1. Whether a constitutional amendment under Article 368 constitutes "law" within the meaning of Article 13(2) of the Constitution?
2. Whether the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964 was valid insofar as it placed additional statutes in the Ninth Schedule, thereby immunising them from fundamental rights challenges?
3. Whether Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951), which upheld Parliament's power to amend fundamental rights, was correctly decided?

What the court held

1. Constitutional amendments are not "law" under Article 13(2) — The majority (Chief Justice Gajendragadkar, Justices Wanchoo, and Raghubar Dayal) held that "law" in Article 13(2) refers to ordinary legislation enacted under the legislative powers of Parliament, not to constitutional amendments made under the constituent power in Article 368. Since the two powers are distinct, Article 13(2) does not restrict the amending power.

2. Shankari Prasad reaffirmed — The majority affirmed the correctness of Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951), which had first held that Parliament's amending power under Article 368 extends to fundamental rights and is not limited by Article 13.

3. Seventeenth Amendment upheld — The Court upheld the validity of the Seventeenth Amendment Act, 1964, including the addition of 44 statutes to the Ninth Schedule.

"Can it be said that what was not intended by the makers of the Constitution has been achieved by the amendment? If the answer is in the negative, the amendment must be upheld." — From the majority opinion

Key legal principles

Constituent power versus legislative power

The central distinction drawn in Sajjan Singh is between Parliament's constituent power (the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368) and its legislative power (the power to enact ordinary legislation under Articles 245-246). The majority held that Article 13(2) restricts only legislative power, not constituent power. This distinction was crucial because it meant that Parliament could amend any provision of the Constitution, including fundamental rights, through the amendment procedure in Article 368.

Seeds of the basic structure doctrine

While the majority upheld unlimited amendment power, the dissenting opinions sowed the seeds of constitutional limitations on that power. Justice Mudholkar raised the question: "Is the right given to the Parliament to amend the Constitution a right to change a basic feature of the Constitution?" Justice Hidayatullah similarly expressed doubt about whether fundamental rights could be entirely abrogated through amendment. These dissenting observations were cited approvingly in Golaknath (1967) and became foundational to the basic structure doctrine in Kesavananda Bharati (1973).

Significance

Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan occupies a pivotal position in the arc of Indian constitutional jurisprudence on amendment power. It was the second case (after Shankari Prasad) to uphold Parliament's unlimited power to amend fundamental rights, but the first in which the Supreme Court's own judges began questioning that unlimited power. The dissenting observations of Justices Hidayatullah and Mudholkar represent the intellectual origin of the basic structure doctrine. The case also marks the last time a Supreme Court majority fully endorsed unlimited amendment power without qualification — within just three years, the 11-judge Bench in Golaknath (1967) would overrule this position by a 6:5 majority.

Exam angle

This case is essential for Judiciary Prelims (Constitutional Law) and UPSC Law Optional (Paper I — Amendment Power).

• MCQ format: "In Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965), the Supreme Court held by what majority that Parliament can amend fundamental rights? (A) Unanimously (B) 4:1 (C) 3:2 (D) 6:5"
• Descriptive format: "Trace the evolution of the amending power doctrine from Shankari Prasad (1951) through Sajjan Singh (1965) to Golaknath (1967). What was the significance of the dissenting opinions in Sajjan Singh?" (Judiciary Mains)
• Key facts to memorize: 5-judge Bench, 3:2 majority, decided 30 October 1964, upheld 17th Amendment, CJ Gajendragadkar led majority, Justices Hidayatullah and Mudholkar dissented, reaffirmed Shankari Prasad
• Related provisions: Article 368, Article 13(2), Article 31A, Article 31B, Ninth Schedule
• Follow-up cases: Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) — overruled Sajjan Singh on 11-judge Bench; Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) — overruled Golaknath but established basic structure

Frequently asked questions

What did Sajjan Singh hold about Parliament's power to amend fundamental rights?

The 5-judge Constitution Bench held by a 3:2 majority that Parliament has full power under Article 368 to amend any provision of the Constitution, including fundamental rights under Part III. The majority reasoned that a constitutional amendment is not "law" within the meaning of Article 13(2), which only restricts ordinary legislation from abridging fundamental rights. This reaffirmed the earlier decision in Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951).

Why is the Sajjan Singh dissent historically important?

The dissenting opinions of Justices Hidayatullah and Mudholkar are historically significant because they first raised the question of whether Parliament's amending power has inherent limits based on the nature of the Constitution. Justice Mudholkar specifically asked whether Parliament could alter a "basic feature" of the Constitution through amendment — an observation that was cited approvingly in Golaknath (1967) and became the intellectual foundation of the basic structure doctrine established in Kesavananda Bharati (1973).

Was Sajjan Singh later overruled?

Sajjan Singh was effectively overruled by the 11-judge Bench in I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967), which held by a 6:5 majority that Parliament cannot amend fundamental rights. However, Golaknath was itself partially overruled by the 13-judge Bench in Kesavananda Bharati (1973), which held that Parliament can amend fundamental rights but cannot destroy the basic structure of the Constitution. The position today is governed by the Kesavananda Bharati doctrine.

What was the Seventeenth Amendment that was challenged?

The Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964 inserted 44 additional statutes — mostly state agrarian reform and land ceiling laws — into the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution. Laws placed in the Ninth Schedule receive immunity from challenge under Articles 14, 19, and 31. The petitioners challenged this amendment on the ground that it abridged their fundamental right to property by immunising land ceiling laws from judicial review.