Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965)

The case of Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965) is a landmark judgement in the constitutional history of India that reaffirmed Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights. It served as the second major judicial pronouncement on the extent of Parliament’s amending power after Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India (1951) and played a critical role in shaping the debate that eventually led to the development of the Basic Structure Doctrine in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973).

Background and Context

After the First Amendment of 1951, several subsequent amendments continued to place land reform and socio-economic legislation in the Ninth Schedule to protect them from judicial review. By the early 1960s, the Seventeenth Amendment Act, 1964 added more state laws to the Ninth Schedule and modified Article 31A of the Constitution to safeguard laws concerning the acquisition of estates and land.
Sajjan Singh, a former ruler of a princely state and a landholder in Rajasthan, challenged the constitutional validity of the Seventeenth Amendment Act. He argued that this amendment curtailed his Fundamental Right to property guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31 and that Parliament did not have the authority to amend Fundamental Rights.
The central issue was whether Parliament, under Article 368, could amend any part of the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights guaranteed in Part III, without violating the essence of the Constitution.

Constitutional Provisions Involved

The case required interpretation of the following provisions of the Constitution:

• Article 13(2): Prohibits the State from making any law that takes away or abridges Fundamental Rights.
• Article 31A and 31B: Protect laws relating to land reforms from being challenged for violating Fundamental Rights.
• Article 368: Grants Parliament the power to amend the Constitution.

The petitioner argued that the Seventeenth Amendment, by amending Articles 31A and 31B, directly infringed upon the Fundamental Rights and should be declared void under Article 13(2).

Issues Before the Court

The Supreme Court was required to determine the following key constitutional questions:

1. Whether Parliament’s power under Article 368 includes the power to amend Fundamental Rights.
2. Whether the term “law” in Article 13(2) includes constitutional amendments made under Article 368.
3. Whether the Seventeenth Amendment Act, 1964, was constitutionally valid.

These questions revisited the same constitutional dilemma that had been addressed earlier in Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951).

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments (Sajjan Singh and others):

• The power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 does not include the power to amend or abridge Fundamental Rights.
• The term “law” in Article 13(2) includes all forms of law, including constitutional amendments.
• The Seventeenth Amendment, by curtailing the Fundamental Right to property, was unconstitutional.
• The amending power under Article 368 was procedural, not substantive, and therefore Parliament could not damage the fundamental features of the Constitution.

Respondent’s Arguments (Union of India and the State of Rajasthan):

• Parliament possesses constituent power under Article 368, which is distinct from legislative power.
• Constitutional amendments are not “law” within the meaning of Article 13(2).
• The validity of the First and Fourth Amendments had already been upheld by the Supreme Court in Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951), and the same principle should apply to the Seventeenth Amendment.
• The amendment was necessary to implement land reforms and give effect to the Directive Principles of State Policy.

Judgement of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court delivered its judgement through a five-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice P.B. Gajendragadkar. The Court, by a majority of 3:2, upheld the validity of the Seventeenth Constitutional Amendment Act, 1964, and reaffirmed the principle laid down in Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951).
Majority Opinion:

• The majority held that Parliament has the power under Article 368 to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
• The term “law” in Article 13(2) does not include constitutional amendments, as the amending power is part of the constituent authority, not ordinary legislative power.
• The Court observed that the framers of the Constitution never intended to make Fundamental Rights unamendable.
• The Seventeenth Amendment was therefore constitutionally valid and within the scope of Parliament’s powers.

Dissenting Opinions

The case is notable for the dissenting opinions of Justice J.R. Mudholkar and Justice M. Hidayatullah, both of whom raised significant constitutional questions that later became the foundation of the Basic Structure Doctrine.
Justice J.R. Mudholkar’s Dissent:

• Justice Mudholkar questioned whether there are inherent limitations on Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
• He suggested that the Constitution has a “basic structure or framework” that cannot be altered or destroyed through amendments.
• He expressed concern that giving unlimited amending power to Parliament could endanger the democratic and constitutional foundations of India.
• This observation was the first judicial reference to the concept of the Basic Structure of the Constitution, later developed in Kesavananda Bharati (1973).

Justice M. Hidayatullah’s Dissent:

• Justice Hidayatullah maintained that Article 368 only prescribes the procedure for amendment, not the substantive power to amend.
• He cautioned that allowing unrestricted amending power could transform the Constitution into something entirely different from what the framers intended.

Significance of the Judgement

The Sajjan Singh case was a crucial milestone in the development of Indian constitutional law. While the majority reaffirmed parliamentary supremacy, the dissenting opinions sowed the seeds for the later doctrine that Parliament’s amending power is not absolute.
The key significance includes:

• Reaffirmation of Shankari Prasad: The judgement confirmed the earlier decision that Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights.
• Recognition of Constituent Power: It reinforced that constitutional amendments under Article 368 are exercises of constituent power, not ordinary legislative acts.
• Prelude to the Basic Structure Doctrine: The dissenting opinions by Justices Mudholkar and Hidayatullah introduced the idea that there may be inherent limitations on Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
• Judicial Philosophy Shift: It reflected a growing judicial concern about balancing Parliamentary sovereignty with constitutional supremacy.
• Protection of Agrarian Reforms: The decision upheld the government’s efforts to pursue socio-economic reforms and implement Directive Principles of State Policy.

Subsequent Developments

The Sajjan Singh decision did not end the constitutional debate. It was soon revisited in subsequent landmark cases:

1. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967):The Supreme Court, by a 6:5 majority, overruled Sajjan Singh and Shankari Prasad, holding that Parliament has no power to amend Fundamental Rights. This was a major shift towards protecting individual liberties.
2. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973):The Court reconciled the two opposing principles by introducing the Basic Structure Doctrine, ruling that Parliament can amend the Constitution but cannot alter its basic structure or essential features.
3. Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980):This case reaffirmed the Kesavananda Bharati doctrine and held that limited amending power itself forms part of the basic structure.

Historical and Constitutional Importance

The Sajjan Singh case occupies a pivotal position in the constitutional evolution of India. It represents the transitional phase between judicial acceptance of absolute parliamentary power and the later recognition of constitutional limitations through the Basic Structure Doctrine.
Historically, its importance lies in:

• Being the second major constitutional amendment case after independence.
• Reflecting the judiciary’s cautious approach in early years toward questioning Parliament’s authority.
• Introducing the conceptual foundation for later judicial activism and constitutional review.
• Establishing that the Directive Principles could serve as a basis for social reform, even at the cost of modifying Fundamental Rights.

Conclusion

Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965) stands as a significant constitutional precedent that reaffirmed Parliament’s amending power while simultaneously giving birth to the idea that such power might have inherent limits. The case bridged the early post-independence deference to parliamentary supremacy and the later judicial assertion of constitutional supremacy. Through its dissenting voices, it planted the seeds of the Basic Structure Doctrine, which would later become the cornerstone of India’s constitutional democracy, ensuring that the spirit and framework of the Constitution remain inviolable.