LANDMARK CASE

Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan

AIR 1965 SC 845 · Supreme Court of India · Constitutional law

At a glance

Citation: AIR 1965 SC 845
Court: Supreme Court of India
Area of law: Constitutional law
In one line: The majority followed Shankari Prasad and said yes, but two judges doubted it, preparing the ground for Golak Nath.

1 Facts

The 17th Amendment, adding laws to the Ninth Schedule, was challenged.

2 Issue

Can Parliament amend fundamental rights?

3 What the court decided

The majority followed Shankari Prasad and said yes, but two judges doubted it, preparing the ground for Golak Nath.

4 Why it matters

A turning point that sowed the idea of limits on amendment.

5 Think about it

Why are the doubting opinions important?

6 Analyse it yourself

Read the full judgment from an official source or a law database, then brief it in seven steps: facts, issues, arguments, decision, ratio, obiter and significance. Always check the citation before you rely on it.

7 More cases on Constitutional law

A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 27
ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976) 2 SCC 521
Air India v. Nergesh Meerza (1981) 4 SCC 335
Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1981) 1 SCC 722
Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India (2008) 3 SCC 1
Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) 3 SCC 637

All 366 landmark cases · Today's Case of the Day · Weekly quiz

← Sahara India Real Estate Corporation v. SEBI (OFCD)Sakal Papers v. Union of India →

A short teaching summary for students. Educational content only, not legal advice.