AIR 1965 SUPREME COURT 845 ::1965 (1) SCJ 377 ::1965 (1) SCR 933 ::1965 (1) SCWR 593

Supreme Court Of India

30th October, 1964

Hon'ble Judge(s): P. B. Gajendragadkar, K. N. Wanchoo, M. Hidayatullah, Raghubar Dayal, J. R. Mudholkar , JJJ

(A) Constitution of India , Art.368, Art.31A, Art.31B, Art.226, Sch.IX— Scope, interpretation and effect of Art. 368 - constitution (17th Amendment) Act (1964) - constitutional validity - Effect of amendments made in Art. 31-A and Sch. 9 on High Courts' powers under Art. 226 is only incidental and insignificant - Pith and substance of Act falls within substantive part of Art. 368 and not under cl, (b) of proviso to Art. 368 - Act is constitutionally valid. Constitution of India (as amended by Seventeenth Amendment) Act (1964) , — By the Court:- The Constitution (17th Amendment) Act, 1964, is constitutionally valid and does not contravene the provisions of Art. .368. The subject-matter of the Act falls under the substantive part of Art. ,368 and it is not necessary that the procedure presented by the proviso to Art. 368 should be followed.(Para 37 38) Per Gajendragadkar, C. J., Wanchoo and Raghubar Dayal, JJ:- The broad scheme of Art. 368 is that if Parliament proposes to amend any provision of the Constitution not enshrined in the proviso, the procedure prescribed by the main part of the Article has to be followed. The Bill introduced for the purpose of making the amendment in question, has to be passed in each House by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not....