Court caseAIR 1965 SC 845

The Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act 1964 widened the definition of 'estate' in Article 31A and added forty-four land reform Acts to the Ninth Schedule. Petitioners challenged it under Article 32, contending that it abridged fundamental rights and that, since it indirectly curtailed the High Courts' power under Article 226, it needed ratification by half the State legislatures under the proviso to Article 368, which had not been obtained.

Gajendragadkar CJ, for the majority, reaffirmed Shankari Prasad: the power to amend in Article 368 includes power to amend fundamental rights, and 'law' in Article 13(2) does not include a constitutional amendment. Applying the pith and substance test, the Court held that the Seventeenth Amendment was in substance about Article 31A and the Ninth Schedule; its effect on Article 226 was incidental, so ratification was not required. Hidayatullah and Mudholkar JJ concurred in the result but voiced serious doubts whether fundamental rights could be made 'the plaything of a special majority' and whether Shankari Prasad was correct, Mudholkar J wondering aloud about 'basic features' of the Constitution.