- CJI P.B. GajendragadkarFavored (Majority - Authored)
- Justice K.N. WanchooFavored (Majority)
- Justice J.C. ShahFavored (Majority)
- Justice M. HidayatullahConcurred (Raised Doubts)
- Justice J.R. MudholkarConcurred (Raised Doubts - seeds of Basic Structure)
- Constitution of India (Article 13(2), 31A, 31B, 226, 368)
- Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964
- Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act
This case primarily challenged the validity of the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964. This amendment expanded the definition of "estate" under Article 31A and added several more land reform acts (including Rajasthan's) to the Ninth Schedule, protecting them from judicial review based on fundamental rights violations.
The core issue revisited was whether Parliament's power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 extended to amending Fundamental Rights, essentially asking the court to reconsider its decision in *Shankari Prasad*. The petitioners argued that the amendment affected rights under Articles 14, 19, and 31.
ARGUMENTS
Petitioner's Case (Sajjan Singh & Others)
- The decision in *Shankari Prasad* was incorrect; Article 368 does not grant power to amend Fundamental Rights.
- Constitutional amendments are "law" under Article 13(2) and void if they abridge Fundamental Rights.
- The 17th Amendment violated Fundamental Rights and was therefore unconstitutional.
- The procedure for amendment under Article 368 was not correctly followed.
Respondent's Case (State of Rajasthan & UOI)
- *Shankari Prasad* correctly decided that Article 368 contains the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
- "Law" in Article 13(2) refers only to ordinary legislation, not constitutional amendments.
- The 17th Amendment was a valid exercise of Parliament's constituent power.
- The amendment procedure was duly followed.
Case Progression Timeline
Shankari Prasad Judgment
Supreme Court upholds Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights via Article 368.
October 5, 1951Continued Land Reforms & Challenges
States continue enacting land reform laws, often facing legal challenges despite Articles 31A/31B.
1950s - Early 1960s17th Amendment Passed
Parliament passes the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, expanding Art 31A and adding more laws to the 9th Schedule.
June 20, 1964Writ Petitions Filed
Petitions are filed challenging the validity of the 17th Amendment, seeking reconsideration of *Shankari Prasad*.
Mid-1964Supreme Court Judgment
By a 3:2 majority, the Court upholds the 17th Amendment and reaffirms *Shankari Prasad*, though two judges express doubts.
October 30, 1964The majority (CJI Gajendragadkar, Wanchoo, Shah JJ.) upheld the decision in *Shankari Prasad*. They reaffirmed that the power under Article 368 was distinct from legislative power and that a constitutional amendment was not "law" under Article 13(2). Thus, Parliament could amend Fundamental Rights.
However, Justices Hidayatullah and Mudholkar, while concurring with the final order (upholding the amendment), expressed significant doubts about the correctness of *Shankari Prasad*. Justice Hidayatullah questioned whether Fundamental Rights, being so essential, could be amended easily. Justice Mudholkar, significantly, questioned whether there were *basic features* of the Constitution that Parliament could not amend, planting the seeds for the future Basic Structure Doctrine.
COURT'S ANALYSIS
The majority largely followed the reasoning of *Shankari Prasad*, emphasizing the distinction between constituent and legislative power. CJI Gajendragadkar argued that if the framers intended to make Fundamental Rights unamendable, they would have stated so explicitly. The key development, however, came from the concurring opinions. Justice Hidayatullah expressed unease about the potential scope of amendment power over fundamental freedoms. Justice Mudholkar went further, citing precedents from other countries and questioning if certain fundamental characteristics of the Constitution were beyond the reach of Article 368, hinting at an implied limitation on the amending power – a precursor to the Basic Structure Doctrine.
FINAL VERDICT
- The Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964, was held to be valid.
- The decision in *Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India* was upheld by the majority.
- Parliament possesses the power under Article 368 to amend Fundamental Rights.
- The writ petitions were dismissed.
RATIO DECIDENDI
(Majority View): Parliament's power under Article 368 includes the power to amend Fundamental Rights, as a constitutional amendment is an exercise of constituent power, not ordinary legislative power limited by Article 13(2).
(Minority Concurring View - Hidayatullah & Mudholkar JJ.): While concurring in the result, expressed doubts about the unlimited nature of the amending power concerning Fundamental Rights and raised the possibility of certain 'basic features' being unamendable.
*(Note: The majority view reaffirming Shankari Prasad was soon overturned in I.C. Golaknath (1967). The minority view's doubts became crucial in Kesavananda Bharati (1973).)*