Ratlam, a princely state that eventually joined the Indian Union, was governed by Sajjan Singh. Sajjan Singh and the Indian government entered into a contract in 1949 that gave him a number of rights and privileges, including the ability to receive a yearly privy purse. The Constitution (26th Amendment) Act, which was passed in 1954, removed the rulers of the former princely states' privy privileges and privy funds. In the Supreme Court, Sajjan Singh contested the legality of the 26th Amendment Act, claiming that it infringed on the fundamental rights that the Indian Constitution had provided to him.
Issue before the Court
- Whether a change made to a fundamental right through a constitutional amendment (under Article 368) falls under the term “law” as per Article 13(2).
- Whether the 26th Constitutional Amendment Act (1971), which ended the privy purses to former rulers of princely states, is legally valid under the Constitution.
Arguments in the case
The petitioner, Sajjan Singh, challenged the 26th Constitutional Amendment, which abolished the privy purses and privileges of former princely rulers. He argued that this violated his fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution.
- Violation of Article 14 – He claimed the amendment was discriminatory, targeting only former rulers, and thus violated the right to equality.
- Violation of Article 19(1)(f) – He said privy purses were part of his property, and taking them away without compensation infringed his right to property.
- Violation of Article 31 – He argued this was an unlawful acquisition of property, done without compensation.
- Binding Nature of Agreements – He claimed the agreements between former rulers and the Indian government were valid, enforceable, and beyond court interference.
- Non-justiciability of Constitutional Amendment – He also said the courts could not review constitutional amendments, as they were matters of policy.
Respondent contended that:
- The privileges contradicted democratic values and equality under the Constitution.
- These benefits came from British-era treaties, not from any constitutional right.
- The abolition was necessary for national integration and equality.
- Privy purses were not fundamental rights, so their removal did not violate the Constitution.
Analysis of the Court
In the Sajjan Singh case, the Supreme Court upheld the 26th Constitutional Amendment, which abolished the privy purses and special privileges once given to former princely rulers. The Court clarified that Parliament has full power under Article 368 to amend any part of the Constitution including fundamental rights. It also explained that the word “law” in Article 13(2), which prohibits laws violating fundamental rights, does not apply to constitutional amendments passed through Parliament’s constituent power.
The judgment stressed that royal privileges conflicted with the democratic values of the Constitution, especially the principle of equality. These privileges were not birthrights but were based on colonial-era agreements, and the government had the authority to end them. The Court also pointed out that these privileges weren’t enforceable rights under the Constitution, so removing them didn’t violate any fundamental rights.
Concluding Remark
In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964. The Court clarified that Parliament has the power under Article 368 to amend any part of the Constitution, including the part that guarantees fundamental rights (Part III). The changes made to Articles 31A and 31B and the addition of laws to the Ninth Schedule were held to be minor and did not significantly affect the powers of High Courts under Article 226. Therefore, the procedure under the main part of Article 368 was enough, and the special procedure in the proviso did not apply.
The Court also refused to reopen the earlier judgment in Shankari Prasad, stating that such well-settled decisions should not be disturbed unless there is a strong reason. It emphasized that fundamental rights are important but not unchangeable, and Parliament can amend them through the proper constitutional process.
Lastly, the Court clarified that the Seventeenth Amendment did not introduce new or independent provisions but merely amended Part III of the Constitution. Adding laws to the Ninth Schedule was only meant to protect them from being challenged under fundamental rights, but this did not stop legislatures from changing or repealing those laws in the future.
