Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan
E545526
Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan is a 1965 Indian Supreme Court case that examined the scope of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, particularly fundamental rights, under Article 368.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T5738335 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan Context triple: [Article 368, subjectOf, Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan]
-
A.
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India is a landmark 2018 Supreme Court of India judgment that decriminalized consensual same-sex relations by reading down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and affirming constitutional protections for LGBTQ+ rights.
-
B.
Joseph Shine v. Union of India
Joseph Shine v. Union of India is a landmark 2018 Supreme Court of India judgment that decriminalized adultery by striking down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code as unconstitutional and discriminatory.
-
C.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala is a landmark 1973 Supreme Court of India judgment that established the basic structure doctrine, limiting Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
-
D.
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India is a landmark Supreme Court of India case that examined environmental, displacement, and development issues surrounding large dam construction on the Narmada River.
-
E.
Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India
Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India is a landmark 2017 Supreme Court of India judgment that unanimously affirmed the fundamental right to privacy under the Indian Constitution.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan Target entity description: Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan is a 1965 Indian Supreme Court case that examined the scope of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, particularly fundamental rights, under Article 368.
-
A.
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India is a landmark 2018 Supreme Court of India judgment that decriminalized consensual same-sex relations by reading down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and affirming constitutional protections for LGBTQ+ rights.
-
B.
Joseph Shine v. Union of India
Joseph Shine v. Union of India is a landmark 2018 Supreme Court of India judgment that decriminalized adultery by striking down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code as unconstitutional and discriminatory.
-
C.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala is a landmark 1973 Supreme Court of India judgment that established the basic structure doctrine, limiting Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
-
D.
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India is a landmark Supreme Court of India case that examined environmental, displacement, and development issues surrounding large dam construction on the Narmada River.
-
E.
Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India
Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India is a landmark 2017 Supreme Court of India judgment that unanimously affirmed the fundamental right to privacy under the Indian Constitution.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (43)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
Indian Supreme Court case
ⓘ
constitutional law case ⓘ fundamental rights case ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
basic structure of the Constitution (preliminary discussion)
ⓘ
constitutional amendments ⓘ fundamental rights ⓘ |
| benchType | Constitution Bench NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| challengedAmendment |
Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution of India
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Seventeenth Constitutional Amendment Act, 1964 NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| chiefJusticeOnBench | P. B. Gajendragadkar NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| citation |
(1965) 1 SCR 933
ⓘ
AIR 1965 SC 845 ⓘ |
| concernedWith |
amendability of fundamental rights
ⓘ
amendment of the Constitution of India ⓘ scope of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution ⓘ |
| country | India ⓘ |
| courtLocation | New Delhi NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| decisionYear | 1965 ⓘ |
| effectOnDoctrine | reaffirmed Shankari Prasad on Parliament’s amending power ⓘ |
| followedBy | I. C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| heldThat |
Parliament has power under Article 368 to amend any part of the Constitution
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
constitutional amendments are not ‘law’ within the meaning of Article 13 ⓘ |
| influenced | development of the basic structure doctrine in India ⓘ |
| judgeOnBench |
J. R. Mudholkar
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
M. Hidayatullah NERFINISHED ⓘ P. B. Gajendragadkar NERFINISHED ⓘ R. S. Bachawat NERFINISHED ⓘ V. Ramaswami NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| jurisdiction | Supreme Court of India NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| languageOfProceedings | English ⓘ |
| legalProvisionInIssue |
Article 13 of the Constitution of India
ⓘ
Article 368 of the Constitution of India NERFINISHED ⓘ fundamental rights provisions of the Constitution of India ⓘ |
| legalSystem | common law ⓘ |
| notedFor | early articulation of limits on amending power in separate opinions ⓘ |
| numberOfJudges | 5 ⓘ |
| petitioner | Sajjan Singh NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| relatedTo |
I. C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala NERFINISHED ⓘ Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| respondent | State of Rajasthan NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| separateOpinionBy |
J. R. Mudholkar
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
M. Hidayatullah NERFINISHED ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan Description of subject: Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan is a 1965 Indian Supreme Court case that examined the scope of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, particularly fundamental rights, under Article 368.
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.