In 1951, several State legislative measures passed for giving effect to a policy of agrarian reform faced a serious challenge in the Courts. In order to assist the State Legislatures to give effect to the policy, Arts. 31A and 31B were added to the Constitution by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951. Article 31B provided that none of the Acts specified in the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution shall be deemed to be void or ever to have become void. In 1955, by the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, Art. 31A was amended. Notwithstanding those amendments some legislative measures adopted by different States for giving effect to the policy were effectively challenged. Io order to save the validity of those Acts as well as of other Acts which were likely to be struck down, Parliament enacted the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment), Act 1964, by which Art. 31A was again amended and 44 Acts were added to the Ninth Schedule. The petitioners in the Writ Petitions in Supreme Court and interveners, were persons affected by one or other of those Acts. They contended that none of the Act by which they were affected could be saved because the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act was constitutionally invalid. It was urged that : (i) Since the powers prescribed by Art. 226, which is in Chapter V, Part VI of the Constitution, wore likely to be affected by Seventeenth Amendment, the special procedure laid down in the proviso to Art. 368, namely, requiring the ratification by not less half the number of States, should be followed; (ii) The decision in Sri Sankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India and State of Bihar, [1952] S.C.R. 89, which negatived such a contention when dealing with the First Amendment, should be reconsidered; (iii) The Seventeenth Amendment Act was a legislative measure in respect of land and since Parliament had no right to make a law in respect of land, the Act was invalid and (iv) Since the Act purported to set aside decision• of Court of competent jurisdiction, it was unconstitutional.