Home case analysis Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1964) : case analysis

Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1964) : case analysis

April 18, 2024

2031

The article is written by Jyotika Saroha. The present article provides a detailed analysis of the landmark judgement in Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1964). It elaborates on the factual background, facts, issues, judgement of the Court, opinions of the judges and the laws applied in the said case. Lastly, it deals with the after-effects of Sajjan Singh’s case.

It has been published by Rachit Garg.

Table of Contents

Introduction

Indian Constitution is an outcome of a long and hard fought battle for rights and freedoms. It came into being in the year of 1950 and has been through various amendments till today. The Indian judiciary is the guardian of the Constitution and by giving several judgements for the protection of the rights of citizens, it has become the protector of the Constitution. The landmark judgments given by the Supreme Court have been taken up as precedents and are of utmost importance. Articles 13 and 368 of the Indian Constitution have long historical implications and there is a lot of controversy between these two articles. Several amendments were made into this regard in order to make the situation between these provisions clear. Article 13 states about the laws which are inconsistent with the Fundamental Rights laid down in Part III of the Indian Constitution. Whereas, Article 368 deals with the power of Parliament to make amendments to the Constitution and procedure for the same.

Details of Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1964)

Name of the case

Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case no.

Writ petitions no. 31, 50, 52, 54, 81 and 82 of 1964

Equivalent Citations

1965 AIR 845, 1965 SCR (1) 933, AIR 1965 SUPREME COURT 845, 1965 (1) SCR 933, 1965 (1) SCJ 377, 1965 (1) SCWR 593

Laws discussed

Constitution of India

Important provisions

Article 368, Article 31A, Article 31B, Article 13(2), and Article 32

Court

Supreme Court of India

Bench

Justice P.B. Gajendragadkar, Justice J.R. Mudholkar, Justice K.N. Wanchoo, Justice M. Hidayatullah and Justice Raghubar Dayal.

Author of the judgement

Justice P.B. Gajendragadkar

Parties to the case

Petitioners

Sajjan Singh

Respondents

State of Rajasthan

Judgement Date

30.10.1964

Background of Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1964)

The controversy was related as to whether the Parliament has the power to make amendments in the Fundamental Rights. While resolving the said controversy, the doctrine of basic structure was developed by the Supreme Court through cases that set precedent for future. Though there is no mention of ‘basic structure’ in the Constitution, the said concept was developed through judicial pronouncements. The doctrine took its shape primarily from the case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973). However, if we look at the historical background of Sajjan Singh’s case, then it all started with the case of A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950), which is popularly known as the preventive detention case, a milestone case in which the Supreme Court interpreted Articles 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. In this case, the petitioner, named A.K. Gopalan, who was a communist leader, was arrested by the State of Madras under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. Therefore, he challenged his detention on several grounds and contended that his fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of Indian Constitution are violated. He further argued that the principles of natural justice were also not followed while making his arrest. It was laid down that Article 21 provides protection against the arbitrary actions of the executive and not against the arbitrary actions of the legislature. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the said Act in this case by stating that the State can take away the right to life and personal liberty under the Constitution. Later, in the case of Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951), the First Amendment Act, 1951 was challenged, which abolished the Zamindari laws. The said amendment Act placed restrictions upon the fundamental right to property and Articles 31A and 31B were added. The petitioner contended that fundamental rights are not permitted to be amended by the Parliament as they are an essential part of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the First Amendment Act, 1951, that introduced the above new articles. Further, the Court also stated that Parliament has the authority to make amendments to the Constitution. The Supreme Court included the power of amending the fundamental rights within the power to amend the Constitution as per Article 368, which implies that the Parliament can take away the fundamental rights given under the Constitution and such amendment would not be considered inconsistent within the meaning under Article 13 of the Constitution. Now, after the Supreme Court delivered its landmark verdicts in the cases of A.K. Gopalan and Shankari Prasad, the question regarding the power to make amendments to the fundamental rights of Parliament again came up in the case of Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1964), wherein the constitutional validity of 17th Amendment Act, 1964, was challenged. The Shankari Prasad case makes way for Sajjan Singh’s case.

Facts of Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1964)

The Rajasthan Government passed the Land Reforms Act and later Parliament also passed the 17th Amendment Act. In the Amendment Act, the legal phrase ‘estate’ was widened under Article 31A. By way of this amendment made under Article 31A, the power to acquire land was increased and it was later put in the 9th Schedule of the Constitution so that it cannot be challenged before any court. The petitioner, namely, Sajjan Singh, who was the ruler of a Princely State, Ratlam, which was later added to the Indian Union. There was an agreement between the Indian Government and Sajjan Singh under which he was granted certain privileges, but after the introduction of the 17th Amendment Act, 1964, changes were also made regarding the right to hold land. The petitioner challenged the said Act and contended that it is unconstitutional and invalid by saying that it violated the Fundamental rights given to him as per the Indian Constitution. Petitions regarding the same concern were filed by many landlords under Article 32 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Issues raised

Whether the 17th Amendment Act is constitutionally invalid?
Whether the amendment made in a fundamental right within Article 368 comes within the ambit of Article 13(2) in the term “Law”?
Whether as per Article 368 the Parliament has power to make amendments in Fundamental rights enshrined within Part III of the Constitution?

Arguments by the parties

Petitioner

The petitioners contended that the 17th Amendment Act deals with land matters and Parliament has no authority to make legislations regarding land matters, hence the said Act is constitutionally invalid.
Petitioners further contended that the decision laid down in the case of Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1952) by the Hon’ble Supreme Court should be reconsidered by the bench.
They also contended that the 17th Amendment Act excluded the courts from deciding on the said matter, which is totally unconstitutional in nature.
It was contended that Article 226 is likely to be affected by the said Amendment Act. The petitioners claimed that the procedure laid down in proviso to Article 368 was not followed, which provides for the approval of fewer than half of the states in order to make a constitutional amendment.

Respondent

The respondents argued that the suit is liable to be dismissed as it is premature.

Laws and precedents discussed in Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1964)

In the case of Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1964) following laws were discussed:

17th Constitutional Amendment

The 17th Amendment Act came into effect on June 20, 1964 and it made amendments to Article 31A and the 9th Schedule of the Constitution, in addition to which 44 state laws that deal with land matters were added.

Article 31B

It states that the Acts and regulations mentioned in the 9th Schedule shall not be deemed to be inconsistent on the ground that they take or abridge the rights conferred in Part III of the Constitution. The Legislature can make amendments to the said Acts and regulations and repeal them.

Article 368

It has been provided that the Parliament, by exercising its constituent power, may add, variate or repeal any provision of the Constitution as per the specified procedure in this article. The clause (2) of this article provides that the process of amendment in the Constitution may be started by introducing the bill for the said purpose in either house of Parliament. Once the bill is passed in each house by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that house who are present and voting, thereafter it shall be sent to the President for the purpose of receiving his assent. In the proviso, it is given that if such amendment seeks to amend provisions laid down from clause (a)-(e) then the said amendment shall require the approval by the Legislatures of not less than one-half of the states and it is to be done before the bill has been sent to the President for the purpose of receiving his assent. Further, in clause (3), it has been given that Article 13 shall not apply to amendments under this Article.

Article 13

It deals with laws that are not consistent with fundamental rights and are considered to be void. The clause (2) of this article states that the State shall not make any law that takes away or abridges the rights conferred under this part; any law made in contravention of this clause shall also be considered void.

Article 32

This Article provides for the remedies for the enforcement of rights conferred by this part. It provides for the right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of rights provided under Part 3 of the Constitution. This Article provides for five writs that can be issued by the Supreme Court. It may issue orders, directions and writs in the nature of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Certiorari, Quo Warranto and Prohibition.

Precedents discussed in Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1964)

In the case of Karimbil Kunhikoman v. State of Kerala (1961), the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, 1961, was challenged before the Supreme Court by way of a writ petition under Article 32 because, as per the contentions of the petitioners, the ceiling that was fixed by the Act results in discrimination and it violates Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court struck down the said Act.

In A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950), it was held by Justice Patanjali Sastri that the fundamental rights are those which people reserve for themselves and in order to decide the constitutional validity of an Act, the duty is ordinarily upon the superior court to determine the validity of said Acts.

In Sri Shankari Prasad Deo v. Union of India and State of Bihar (1951), the First Constitutional Amendment Act was challenged. The newly inserted Articles in the amendment Act were Articles 31A and 31B and they sought to make changes to Article 226 and therefore required the ratification laid down in proviso under Article 368. The Supreme Court held that the article did not affect the powers of the High Court given under Article 226 directly or indirectly. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the First Amendment Act, 1951.

Issue-wise judgement in Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1964)

The Supreme Court, by a majority of 3:2 held that the 17th Amendment Act is constitutionally valid.

Validity of the 17th Constitutional Amendment Act

In order to check the validity of the impugned Act, the Court considered it necessary to determine the true scope of powers laid down in Article 368 of the Constitution. In considering the true scope, it is necessary to look upon the Article 226, which is a constitutional provision that falls under clause (b) of the proviso. Therefore, if the Parliament is intended to make amendments to Article 226, then the requirement laid down in the proviso must be followed. The Court further stated that there are two parts to Article 368, one is the substantive part and the other is proviso and there must be a reasonable construction of both harmonised with each other. The Court considered that the Constitution makers did not mention Part III under the Proviso to Article 368; by doing so, the Court assumed that the matter should be dealt with by the Parliament as per the substantive provisions of Article 368 and not as per the Proviso. The Supreme Court, looking into the true scope of the powers of Parliament laid down within Article 368, upheld the validity of the 17th Constitutional Amendment Act, whose purpose was to secure the constitutional validity of land acquisition and of the estates falling within the ambit of the 9th Schedule of the Indian Constitution.

Amendment made in fundamental rights as per Article 368 come within the ambit of Article 13(2) under the term ‘law’

While dealing with the term ‘law’ given in Article 13 if it includes the constitutional amendments made under Article 368, the Court stated that there is no complete or clear definition of the word ‘law’ given in the said Article, but it shall not include the constitutional amendment made under Article 368. The Court stated that in construing the word ‘law’ given in Article 13 it is a matter of abundant caution to interpret the said word.

Power of Parliament to make amendments in fundamental rights as per Article 368

The Court stated that by adding Articles 31A and 31B, the sole object of Parliament is to assist the State Legislatures in order to boost their economic policies and with the same object, the second amendment was also passed in 1952. The Parliament focussed upon implementing agrarian reforms that can help people living in villages whose financial capabilities are connected with such reforms. The Court further applied the test of Pith and Substance and stated that the only object of Parliament in amending the fundamental rights was to remove any possible hurdle that comes in the way of socio-economic policies. Also, the said impugned Act does not affect or change the provisions laid down in Article 226.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court, disagreeing with the petitioner’s contention that the 17th Amendment Act violates the High Court’s rights that are being given under Article 226, stated that the main aim of central government was to protect the acts of state on the said matter from judicial review by putting it in the 9th Schedule of the Constitution. The Court further clarified that the constitutional amendments do not come within the ambit of Article 13 in the term “law.” As a result, such amendments in accordance with Article 368 are capable of amending the fundamental rights.

Dissenting opinion

The judgement is still criticised today, as the Supreme Court did not protect the fundamental rights of the citizens. It is to be kept in mind that Justice M. Hidayatullah and Justice Mudholkar gave dissenting opinions. Justice M. Hidayatullah did not accept the majority opinion and stated that the fundamental rights are an integral part of the Indian Constitution and are not amenable to constitutional amendments as they are the basic rights of human beings and the Parliament cannot decide upon them.

On the other hand, Justice Mudholkar stated that the fundamental rights are the basic elements of the Constitution and cannot be amended.

After-effects of the Sajjan Singh case

The judgement given in Sajjan Singh’s case was overruled in the case of I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967), wherein it was held that as per Article 368, the Parliament has no power to make constitutional amendments to fundamental rights if it violates them. The opinion laid down in Golaknath’s case was totally based upon the dissenting opinion of Justice M. Hidayatullah given in the case of Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1964). Also, the concept of ‘basic structure’ articulated in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) was also based upon the dissenting opinion of Justice Mudholkar given in Sajjan Singh’s case. In Kesavananda Bharati’s case, the Bench, in its historic verdict, held that Article 368 of the Constitution does not provide for unlimited or unfettered powers to the Parliament to make amendments to the Constitution. Also, after this judgement the government decided to abolish the privileges provided to the former princely states in order to pave the way for an egalitarian society. The Supreme Court, through this landmark judgement, formulated that the Constitution is the law of the land and is supreme.

Conclusion

It can be concluded by saying that fundamental rights are an integral and vital part of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court in this case, by upholding the constitutional validity of the 17th Amendment Act, stated that the Parliament has exclusive powers to make amendments to the fundamental rights enshrined under Part III of the Indian Constitution. However, the judgement of this case was overturned in the case of I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967), which was further overruled in the case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) Sajjan Singh’s case is a landmark judgement that has formulated a base for the doctrine of basic structure and also helped in determining the constitutional validity of laws that are in force within the territory of India.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What cases are precursors to the landmark case of Keshvananda Bharati v. State of Kerala?

The precursors of the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) were A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950), wherein the Supreme Court stated that fundamental rights are not absolute and can be suspended for certain reasons. In Sri Shankari Prasad Deo v. Union of India and State of Bihar (1951) wherein the Supreme Court dealt with the power of Parliament to make amendments to the Constitution and held that this power is absolute. Further, in Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1964) where the Supreme Court held that the Parliament has the power to make amendments in fundamental rights. Lastly, in I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967), the Supreme Court again dealt with the powers of Parliament to make amendments to the Constitution. It was held that the power is not absolute and that certain restrictions are there.

In which case was the judgement given in Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1964) overruled?

The judgement given in Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1964) was overruled in I.C. Golaknath & Ors. v. State of Punjab (1967), wherein the Supreme Court dealt with the Parliament’s power to make amendments to the Constitution. The Court limited the scope of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution. The Court stated that these powers are not unlimited and unfettered and the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III cannot be taken away through a constitutional amendment.

What is the doctrine of basic structure?

The doctrine of ‘basic structure’ was originated by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973); however, the base of this doctrine was set up in the case of Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1964). In Kesavananda Bharati’s case, the Court stated that the powers of Parliament given under Article 368 of the Constitution are not unlimited and the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution cannot be amended.

What is the doctrine of Pith and Substance?

The doctrine of pith and substance is an important principle of the Indian Constitution; it comes from the Canadian Constitution. It basically comes into picture when the question of determining whether a law is related to a specific subject or not arises.

References

Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/lawyerscommunity