A significant legal case pertaining to the fundamental framework of the Indian constitution is sajjan singh vs state of rajasthan. Since they constitute the most significant portion of the Indian Constitution, certain essential features cannot be altered. According to Justice Khanna, the fundamental rights that are accorded to every citizen of the nation are the most important aspects. Article 368 of the Indian Constitution allowed the Parliament to amend any part of the document, including the Fundamental Rights, before the basic structure was introduced.
sajjan singh vs state of rajasthan Case Summary
sajjan singh vs state of rajasthan facts:
- Ratlam was a princely state ruled by Sajjan Singh before it was absorbed into the Indian Union.
- Sajjan Singh and the Indian government signed a deal in 1949 that gave him various rights and benefits, including the ability to get an annual privy purse.
- With the passage of the Constitution (26th Amendment) Act in 1954, the princely privileges and privy purses of the former princely states were eliminated.
- In the Supreme Court, Sajjan Singh contested the constitutionality of the 26th Amendment Act, claiming that it infringed upon his fundamental rights as protected by the Indian Constitution.
Sajjan Singh vs State of Rajasthan Issues:
- Does an amendment to Article 368 fundamental right count as “law” for the purposes of Article 13 (2)?
- Is it possible for Parliament to alter a fundamental right in Part III of the Constitution in any way within the parameters of Article 368?
- Does the 26th Amendment Act have legal standing, given that it abolished the princely rights and privy funds of the former rulers of princely states?
Contentions by the Petitioners:
- The petitioners argued that the special procedure specified in the proviso to Article 368 should have been followed because Article 226, which is a part of Chapter V, Part VI of the Constitution, may be impacted by the Seventeenth Amendment. This clause stipulates that some constitutional amendments must be ratified by fewer than half the states.
- They aimed to reexamine the ruling in the 1952 case of Sri Sankari Prasad Singh Deo v UOI and State of Bihar, which addressed the First Amendment’s validity and rejected a similar argument. They thought that a new assessment of this previous choice was necessary.
- They argued that the Seventeenth Amendment Act was invalid because Parliament lacked the authority to make laws pertaining to land, and the Act dealt with land-related issues.
- Lastly, they claimed that the Act was unconstitutional because it attempted to overturn rulings made by courts with competent jurisdiction.
Contentions Raised by the Respondent:
- The respondents contended that the lawsuit should be dismissed because it is premature.
Sajjan Singh vs State of Rajasthan Judgment:
- The sajjan singh vs state of rajasthan date of judgment is 31st March 1965.
- Chief Justice P.B. Gajendragadkar, Justice K.N. Wanchoo, Justice M. Hidayatullah, Justice J.R. Mudholkar, and Justice Raghubar Dayal made up the bench that heard the case.
- The Supreme Court of India upheld the validity of the 26th Amendment Act, which did away with the princely rights and privy funds of the former princely states. Unquestionably and clearly, the term “amendment of the Constitution” refers to modifying each and every one of the document’s clauses. The Court went on to state that a law passed by Parliament using that body’s inherent authority to amend the Constitution does not qualify as a “law” under Article 13(2).
- The Indian Supreme Court ruled that princely privileges and privy purses were incompatible with democratic values and the Indian Constitution, which prohibits discrimination based on birth and guarantees equality before the law.
- The Court emphasized that the princely monarchs did not have a specific birthright to such things; rather, their rights and powers were granted by treaties with the British government. The Indian Supreme Court held that the Indian government had every right to abolish princely rights and confiscate funds in order to unite the princely states into the Indian Union.
- The Court further decided that the removal of royal privileges and privy purses did not violate the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Indian Constitution since they were never considered rights in the first place. The ruling had significant implications for the process of bringing together the princely states into the Indian Union and strengthened the Union government’s position vis-à-vis the former rulers of the princely states.
The guarantee to citizens contained in Part III’s pertinent provisions can rightfully be described as the foundational principle and cornerstone of the democratic way of life ushered in by the Constitution. The significance and importance of fundamental rights must be acknowledged.
There are three different ways that the Constitution can be amended. Although Art. 368 gives Parliament the authority to amend the document, it is unclear whether this power can be used to change any of the fundamental provisions of the document as long as the preamble is left intact.
For any latest news, legal topics, case laws, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
