Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan
|Case Name:||Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965)|
|Equivalent Citation:||AIR 1965 SC 845|
|Date of Judgement:||31st March 1965|
|Case no:||AIR 1965 SC 845|
|Case Type:||Constitutional Validity|
|Respondent:||State of Rajasthan|
|Bench:||P. B Gajendragadkar, K. Subba Rao, K.N Wanchoo, M Hitayatullah, J. C Shah|
|Referred:||Constitutional Validity of 26th Amendment|
In the important case of Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, the foundation of our Indian constitution is on the line. There are several key elements of the Indian Constitution that cannot be changed because they make up the majority of the document. The greatest advantages, in Justice Khanna’s opinion, are the fundamental rights that have been granted to all citizens. The Indian Constitution’s Article 368 grants the Parliament the power to alter any section of the document, including the Fundamental Rights.
FACTS OF THE CASE
- The Seventeenth Amendment Act safeguards specific demonstrations that are passed by the State Assemblies by remembering them for the 10th Timetable under Article 31B, which may be attacked by Articles 14, 19, and 31 of the Constitution of India.
- The (Seventeenth Amendment Act) Act, of 1964 was tested under the watchful eye of the Pinnacle Court of India since it impacted the powers that are recommended under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and have not followed the exceptional technique as set down under Article 368 of the Constitution of India.
- The topic of the Sankari Prasad Case was again raised regardless of whether the basic freedoms can be revised.
- The 10th schedule contains specific rules connecting with the property and the specialty of the 10th schedule was that it isn’t exposed to legal audit and on account of that right to legal survey was removed, which is one of the essential highlights of the constitution. The rule of Essence and Substance was applied to this case.
- Does a modification to a basic right under Article 368 fall under the definition of “law” in Article 13 (2)?
- Is it possible for Parliament to modify a basic right in Part III of the Constitution in any way under Article 368?
- The 26th Amendment Act’s repeal of the princely rights and privy funds of the former princely state rulers, have legal standing?
Contention of the Petitioner
- The main defence was that when changing the pertinent Constitutional provisions, the procedure specified by the proviso should have been used.
- Whether the Amendment Act violates Article 13(2) insofar as it aims to limit or eliminate the rights granted by Part III of the Constitution; and (b) whether Articles 31A and 31B seek to amend Articles 132, 136, or 226 or any of the Lists in the Seventh Schedule and, as a result, must meet the requirements of the proviso to Article 368. These two arguments were both rejected by this court.
Contention of the Respondent
- The respondents argued that the lawsuit was brought too soon and should be rejected.
The Indian Constitution’s Article 368 grants the Parliament the authority to alter any of the Constitution’s articles, according to the Supreme Court.
It was asserted once more that the scope of Article 368 is restricted to constitutional law, whereas Article 13 only applies to regular laws and not to constitutional amendments.
According to the majority ruling, Parliament has the authority to change people’s fundamental rights.
Fundamental rights are significant and important, and the guarantee to people provided in the relevant sections of Part III can be appropriately defined as the very cornerstone of the democratic way of life introduced by the Constitution.
The Constitution has three different ways that it can be amended, and even though Art. 368 gives Parliament the authority to do so, it must be determined whether that authority can be used to alter any of the fundamental provisions of the Constitution as long as the preamble is left intact.
written by Rohini Tondare intern under legal vidhiya.