{"id":77492,"date":"2025-12-11T17:53:44","date_gmt":"2025-12-11T12:23:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/?p=77492"},"modified":"2025-12-11T17:53:44","modified_gmt":"2025-12-11T12:23:44","slug":"sajjan-singh-vs-state-of-rajasthan","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/sajjan-singh-vs-state-of-rajasthan\/","title":{"rendered":"Sajjan Singh vs State of Rajasthan 1964, Issue, Judgment, 17th Amendment"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Sajjan Singh vs State of Rajasthan (1964) is a landmark Supreme Court judgment that examined Parliament\u2019s authority to amend the Constitution, especially provisions of Part III relating to fundamental rights. The case was decided by a six-judge bench led by Chief Justice P.B. Gajendragadkar. The case addressed whether the Seventeenth Constitutional Amendment was valid, which added several land reform laws to the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution of India. The ruling reaffirmed the supremacy of Article 368 and upheld Parliament\u2019s wide amending power at a critical stage of India\u2019s constitutional evolution.<\/span><\/p>\n<h2><b>Sajjan Singh vs State of Rajasthan Issue Involved<\/b><\/h2>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Sajjan Singh vs State of Rajasthan case arose from challenges to the Seventeenth Amendment which expanded Articles 31A and 31B.<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Parliament enacted the 17th Constitutional Amendment Act 1964 by adding 44 land reform laws to the <a href=\"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/upsc-exam\/ninth-schedule\/\" target=\"_blank\"><strong>Ninth Schedule<\/strong><\/a> of the Constitution.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Petitioners affected by these State laws filed writ petitions arguing that their fundamental rights were diluted.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">They contended that the amendment altered Part III, indirectly impacting High Courts\u2019 powers under Article 226.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Petitioners argued that the proviso to Article 368 required ratification by half of the States, which was not done.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">They claimed the amendment exceeded Parliament\u2019s jurisdiction since land is a State subject.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Petitioners urged reconsideration of the Sankari Prasad Case ruling validating earlier amendments.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The case raised critical constitutional questions linked to Parliament\u2019s power to amend rights:<\/span>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Whether altering Part III required mandatory ratification under the proviso to Article 368.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Whether Parliament could indirectly restrict the powers of High Courts under Article 226.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Whether the term \u201claw\u201d in Article 13(2) included constitutional amendments.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Whether Parliament had competency to amend or abridge <a href=\"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/upsc-exam\/fundamental-rights\/\" target=\"_blank\"><strong>fundamental rights<\/strong><\/a>.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Whether the Seventeenth Amendment was a valid exercise of constitutional power.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><b>Sajjan Singh vs State of Rajasthan Judgment<\/b><\/h2>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">In the Sajjan Singh vs State of Rajasthan Case, the Supreme Court upheld the Seventeenth Constitutional Amendment by a majority decision.<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Majority held that amendments to Part III could be made under Article 368 without State ratification.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Changes to fundamental rights caused only indirect or incidental impact on Article 226, so the proviso did not apply.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Constitutional amendments were not \u201claw\u201d under Article 13(2), so they could not be struck down for abridging fundamental rights.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Parliament possessed plenary power to amend any constitutional provision, including Part III.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Minority (Hidayatullah and Mudholkar JJ.) warned that unlimited amending power risked damaging essential features of the Constitution.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><b>Doctrine of Basic Structure<\/b><\/h2>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Basic Structure Doctrine is a judicial principle stating that Parliament may amend any part of the Constitution but cannot alter its essential features. It was introduced by the Supreme Court in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) to protect core elements such as judicial review, rule of law, federalism, and fundamental rights from destructive amendments.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Although not explicitly recognized in the Sajjan Singh vs State of Rajasthan Case, it has played a crucial role in shaping the doctrine through the dissent of Justice Mudholkar questioning whether there existed certain fundamental features that Parliament could not amend, including judicial review and the democratic framework.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<h2><b>Seventeenth Constitutional Amendment Act 1964<\/b><\/h2>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The 17th Constitutional Amendment Act 1964 was enacted to protect land reform laws facing invalidation before courts.<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Amended Article 31A to further shield agrarian reform laws from judicial scrutiny.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Added 44 State land reform Acts to the Ninth Schedule through Article 31B.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Sought to protect ceiling laws, tenancy reforms, and land redistribution policies.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Ensured previously invalidated laws would be deemed valid retrospectively (A- 31B).<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Enabled the continuation of socio-economic reforms linked to equitable land distribution.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Became one of the most controversial amendments due to its sweeping immunities.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Sajjan Singh vs State of Rajasthan (1964) upheld Parliament\u2019s amending power, reviewed the 17th Amendment, and laid early groundwork for the Basic Structure doctrine.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":25,"featured_media":77445,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[786],"tags":[4157],"class_list":{"0":"post-77492","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-general-studies","8":"tag-sajjan-singh-vs-state-of-rajasthan","9":"no-featured-image-padding"},"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/77492","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/25"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=77492"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/77492\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/77445"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=77492"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=77492"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=77492"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}