DATE: 11/03/2007
COURT: Supreme Court of India
BENCH: Justice Y.K. Sabharwal, Justice Ashok Bhan, Justice Arijit Pasayat, Justice B.P. Singh, Justice S.H. Kapadia and Justice C.K
FACTS:
The case arose from challenges to certain laws that were initially declared unconstitutional by courts but were later placed under the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution through constitutional amendments. In Balmadies Plantations Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu (1972), the Supreme Court struck down the Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1969 as unconstitutional. However, the Thirty-fourth Amendment Act (1974) added this law to the Ninth Schedule, shielding it from judicial review. Similarly, the Calcutta High Court declared Section 2(c) of the West Bengal Land Holding Revenue Act, 1979 arbitrary and unconstitutional, but it was later included in the Ninth Schedule through the Sixty-sixth Amendment Act (1990). These amendments raised concerns about whether laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after being invalidated could still be shielded from judicial scrutiny.
A five-judge Constitution Bench, while hearing the case, referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Waman Rao & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1981), which had held that laws added to the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973 (the date of the Keshavananda Bharati judgment) could still be challenged if they violated fundamental constitutional principles. Given the significance of this issue, the matter was referred to a larger nine-judge Bench to reconsider the validity of the Waman Rao precedent and determine the extent to which laws placed in the Ninth Schedule could remain beyond judicial review.
ISSUES:
The main issue in this case was whether laws added to the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973, could be challenged for violating fundamental rights, particularly Articles 14, 19, and 21, and whether such laws were immune from judicial review under the basic structure doctrine established in Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973).
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The five-judge bench referred the case to a nine-judge bench to reconsider the decision in Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981). The bench highlighted that laws added to the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973, could still be challenged if they violated the fundamental principles of the Constitution, particularly Articles 14, 19, and 21, in line with the basic structure doctrine. The nine-judge bench was tasked with determining the final position on this issue.
The court referred the matter to a larger nine-judge bench to re-examine the decision in Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981) in light of the broader constitutional principles, particularly the relationship between the Ninth Schedule and fundamental rights. The five-judge bench acknowledged that while the inclusion of laws in the Ninth Schedule under constitutional amendments could protect them from judicial review, such laws added after the Keshavananda Bharati (1973) decision could still be subject to scrutiny if they violated the basic structure of the Constitution. This reasoning was based on the principle that the basic structure doctrine limits the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution in a manner that could alter its fundamental framework.
The court emphasized that despite the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and add laws to the Ninth Schedule, such amendments should not override the Constitution’s core principles, such as the protection of fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 14, 19, and 21. The bench's referral to a larger bench reflects the need to clarify whether any laws included in the Ninth Schedule after Keshavananda Bharati could still be challenged on constitutional grounds. The larger bench would examine if laws contrary to the Constitution’s basic structure should remain protected or if they could be subject to judicial review, ensuring that the balance between legislative power and fundamental rights is maintained.
ANALYSIS:
In this case, the five-judge Constitution bench recognized the complexity surrounding laws added to the Ninth Schedule of the Indian Constitution, particularly after the Keshavananda Bharati (1973) judgment, which introduced the basic structure doctrine. By referring the matter to a larger nine-judge bench, the Court aimed to resolve the constitutional conflict between Parliament's power to amend the Constitution and the protection of fundamental rights. The Court acknowledged that while laws placed in the Ninth Schedule are typically shielded from judicial review, those added after Keshavananda Bharati could still be challenged if they violated the Constitution's core principles, specifically Articles 14 (equality), 19 (freedom), and 21 (right to life and personal liberty). This approach would ensure that the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution does not override the fundamental rights guaranteed to individuals.
The Court's reasoning underscored the importance of preserving the basic structure of the Constitution, which includes the protection of fundamental rights. By referring the case to a larger bench, the Court signaled the need for a deeper examination of how laws placed in the Ninth Schedule interact with judicial review, particularly in the context of amendments made after Keshavananda Bharati. The Court’s decision reflected a careful balancing act between protecting the legislative powers of Parliament and safeguarding constitutional principles that protect individual liberties. This referral highlighted the evolving nature of constitutional law in India, particularly in relation to the limits of Parliament’s power during constitutional amendments.
info@adhwaitha.com
