LexSAJJAN SINGH versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c • • D E F G .. H SAJJAN SINGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (With Connected Petitions) October 30, 1964 (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH, RAGHUBAR 'DAYAL AND J. R. MUDHOLKAR JJ.) Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964----Validity of. In 1951, several State legislative measures passed for giving effect to a policy of agrarian reform faced a serious challenge in the Courts. In order to assist the State Legislatures to give effect to the policy, Arts. 31A and 3 !B were added to the Constitution by the Constitution (First Amend- ment) Act, 1951. Article 31B provided that none of the Acts specified in the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution shall be deemed to be void or ever to have become void. In 1955, by the Constitution (Fourth Amend- ment) Act, Art. 3IA was amended. Notwithstanding those amendments some legislative measures adopted by different States for giving effect to the policy \Vere effectively challenged. Io order to save the validity of those Acts as well as of other Acts which were likely to be struck down, Parliament enacted the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment), Act 1964, by which Art. 31 A \Vas again amended and 44 Acts were added to the Ninth Schedule. 1·he petitioners in the Writ Petitions in Supreme Courti and interveners, were persons affected by one or other of those Acts. They contended that none of the Act by which they were affected could be sa\ed because the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act was constitutionally invalid. It was urged that : (i) Since the powers pres- cnbed by Art. 226, which is in Chapter V, Part VI of the Constitution, wore likely to be affected by Seventeenth Amendment, the special proce- dure laid down in the proviso to Art. 368, namely, requiring th~ ratifi~ cation by not less half the number of States, should be followed; (ii) The decision in Sri Sankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India and State of Bihar, [1952] S.C.R. 89, which negatived such a contention when dealing with the First Amendment, should be reconsidered; (iii) The Seventeenth Amendment Act was a legislative measure in respect of land and since Parliament had no right to make a law in respect of land, the Act was invalid and (iv) Since the Act purported to set aside decision• of Court of competent jurisdiction, it was unconstitutional. HELD (by P, B, Gajendragadkar C. J., Wanchoo, and Raghubar Dayal JJ.) : (i) The main part of Art. 368 and its proviso must on a reasonable construction be harmonised with each other in the sense that the scope and effect of either of them should not be allowed to be unduly reduced or enlarg- ed. Such a constrnctionJrequires that if amendment of the fundamental righta is to make a substantial inroad on the High Court's powers under Art. 226, it would become necess~ry to consider whether the pro\iso to Art. 368 would cover such a case. If the effect is indirect, incidental or other~ w1se of an insignificant order the proviso may not apply. In dealing wab such a question, the test to be adopted is to find the pith and substance of the impugned Act. So tested it is clear that the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act amends the fundamental rights solely with the object of removing obstacles in the fulfilment of a socio-economic policy. Jts effect 93' SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1965) I S.C.R. on An. 226 is incidental and insignificant The Act thereto" falls under the substanuve pan of An. 368 and does not attract the proviso. (940 D-E · 941 B-E; 944 D-F] ' (ii) On the contentions urged there was no justification for reconsidering Shankarl Prasatfs case. (947 G-Hl Though the Constitution i.o an organic document intended to serve as • guide to the solution of changing problems the Coun should be reluctant to ~ccedc to the suggestion that its earlier decisions should be light-heartedly reviewed and depaned from. In such a case the test is : ls it absolutely necessary and <$SClllial that the question already decided should be re- opened. The answer to the question would depend on the nature of the infirmity alleged in the earlier decision, its impon on public good and the validity and compelling character of the considerations urged in sup- pon of the contrary view. It is therefore relevant and material to note that if the argumoot urged by the petitioners were to prevail, it would lead to the inevitable consequence that the amendments of 1951 and 1955 and a large nu
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.