Search results
- The Supreme Court of India confirmed the constitutionality of the 26th Amendment Act, which eliminated the princely privileges and privy funds of the rulers of the former princely states, in Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan. The phrase "amendment of the Constitution" clearly and indisputably refers to changing all of the Constitution's clauses.
www.legalbites.in › landmark-judgements › case-analysis-sajjan-singh-v-state-of-rajasthan-1965-932298
People also ask
Who was Sajjan Singh?
What is Sajjan Singh v State of Rajasthan?
Was Article 368 misused in Sajjan Singh v State of Rajasthan?
What is the history of Sajjan Singh v State of Madras?
A landmark case on the validity of the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964, which added 44 Acts to the Ninth Schedule to protect them from judicial review. The Court held that the Act was valid and that the proviso to Art. 368 did not apply to it.
- Article 1
Constitution Article Article 1 in Constitution of India 1....
- Art. 32 ( 1 )
Constitution Subarticle Article 32(1) in Constitution of...
- Delhi Laws Act
Delhi Laws Act, 1915 Act No. 7 of 1915 1498. Object and...
- Article 1
Apr 18, 2024 · 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.
- Introduction
- Historical Background of Sajjan Singh V State of Rajasthan
- Appellant’S Contentions – Sajjan Singh Case
- Ratio Decidendi of The Case
- Dissenting Opinion
- After-Effects of Sajjan Singh V State of Rajasthan Case
- GeneratedCaptionsTabForHeroSec
The Indian Constitution is considered the supreme law of the land. However, it has not been given this level of importance, even though it has been a topic of contention since the time of Indian Independence. This is because it has been updated according to the developments in Indian society through amendments. The legislature has been given this r...
The First Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 1951 was challenged in the case of Shankari Prasad v. Union of India. This amendment added Articles 31-A and 31-B to the constitution thereby restricting an individual’s right to property. It was also stated that any law that was included under the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution would be immune to judic...
In the above-mentioned Sajjan Singh v State of Rajasthan case, the Appellant claimed the following: 1. The powers under Article 368 were misused to overpower the rights given to the State judiciary through Article 226 of the Constitution, thereby violating the rules as per Article 368 as well. 2. All laws relating to possession of “land” are matter...
The Supreme Court disagreed with the Appellant’s argument that the 17thAmendment Act violates the rights of the High Courts provided under Article 226. In order to substantiate the same, the Supreme Court stated that the Union only intended to protect the State Acts on the said matter from judicial review thereby placing them in the Ninth Schedule ...
However, Justice M. Hidayatullah’s opinion in the said matter of Sajjan Singh gave rise to the arguments in future cases on the matter of the amendment of fundamental rights. This is because he stated that while he partially dissented to the opinions of the other judges. He did so by adjudging that while he agreed that the Seventeenth Amendment did...
The dissenting opinion of Justice M. Hidayatullah compelled the judiciary and the lawmakers to reconsider the judgements passed in the cases of both, Shankari Prasad v Union of India and Sajjan Singh v State of Rajasthan. The said opinion formed grounds for the filing of future cases including Golaknath v. State of Punjab and the infamous Kesavanan...
A case analysis of the landmark Supreme Court case that challenged the constitutional validity of the Seventeenth Constitutional Amendment Act, 1964, which modified the fundamental right to property. The case analysed the historical background, the appellant's contentions, the ratio decidendi, the dissenting opinion and the after-effects of the case.
Aug 26, 2022 · A case summary of the 1954 SC case that analysed the power of Parliament to amend the fundamental rights under Article 368 of the Indian Constitution. The court held that the Ninth Schedule, which includes certain statutes that affect the fundamental rights, is not subject to judicial review and can be changed by the Parliament under Article 368.
May 11, 2023 · A landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India that confirmed the constitutionality of the 26th Amendment Act, which removed the princely privileges and privy funds of the former princely state rulers. The Court ruled that the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution did not include the fundamental rights of the Indian Constitution, and that the 26th Amendment Act did not infringe on the fundamental rights of Sajjan Singh, the former princely ruler of Ratlam.
Apr 13, 2023 · The case of Sajjan Singh vs State of Rajasthan was heard by the Supreme Court of India in 1965. The case involved a challenge to the validity of the Constitution (26 th Amendment) Act, which abolished the princely privileges and privy purses of the rulers of the former princely states.
Sajjan Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 30 August, 1954. Equivalent citations: AIR1954RAJ301. JUDGMENT Wanchoo, C.J. 1.
