Waman Rao v. Union of India
Supreme Court of India · 9 May 1980 · 5 judges · 1981 SCR (2) 1; 1980 SCC (3) 587
The Court upheld Articles 31A, 31B and the unamended Article 31C, holding that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule before 24 April 1973 are fully protected, while later additions are valid only if they do not damage the basic structure.
Facts
Maharashtra imposed a ceiling on agricultural holdings by the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, later lowered by amending Acts of 1975 and 1976. The Bombay High Court rejected challenges to these Acts, which had been placed in the Ninth Schedule, and the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals in Dattatraya Govind Mahajan in January 1977, during the Emergency. After the Emergency was revoked, the landholders sought review, arguing that they had been unable to raise several contentions, and filed fresh writ petitions. The Court allowed review. The main challenge was to Articles 31A, 31B and the unamended Article 31C themselves, on the ground that the constitutional amendments introducing them damaged the basic structure. The petitioners also challenged the Emergency proclamations, the Acts extending the Lok Sabha's term and the 40th Amendment.
Questions before the Court
- Does Article 31A, introduced by the First Amendment and amended by the Fourth Amendment, damage the basic structure of the Constitution?
- Can Article 31A be upheld on the principle of stare decisis?
- Are Article 31B and the Ninth Schedule valid, and to which laws does their protection extend after Kesavananda Bharati?
- Is the unamended Article 31C valid, and were the 40th Amendment and the Acts extending the Lok Sabha's term valid?
What the Court held
- The First Amendment inserting Article 31A, and section 3 of the Fourth Amendment, do not damage the basic structure and are valid. Chandrachud, C.J. reasoned that Article 31A, aimed at agrarian reform and removing inequalities, strengthens rather than weakens the basic structure, and that marginal and incidental inequalities cannot destroy it.
- Acts and Regulations placed in the Ninth Schedule before 24 April 1973, the date of Kesavananda Bharati, receive the full protection of Article 31B. Additions made on or after that date are valid only if the amendments making them do not damage or destroy the basic structure.
- That inquiry becomes unnecessary for a later-added law that is itself saved by Article 31A or by the unamended Article 31C.
- The unamended Article 31C is valid to the extent its constitutionality was upheld in Kesavananda Bharati and does not damage the basic structure. Chandrachud, C.J. read the majority ratio of Kesavananda Bharati as holding its first part valid.
- Chandrachud, C.J. held the Acts extending the Lok Sabha's term valid because both Emergency proclamations were in operation when they were passed; the evidence did not allow a finding that the proclamations were non est. The writ and review petitions on the Maharashtra ceiling laws were dismissed with costs.
Why it matters
The judgment fixes 24 April 1973, the date of Kesavananda Bharati, as the dividing line for the protection of laws in the Ninth Schedule: earlier additions are fully protected, later ones must survive the basic structure test. It also upholds Article 31A and the unamended Article 31C; the Chief Justice discusses the limits of stare decisis in constitutional cases, on which the judges differed.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“Thus, in so far as the validity of Article 31B read with the Ninth schedule is concerned, we hold that all Acts and Regulations included in the Ninth Schedule prior to April 24, 1973 will receive the full protection of Article 31B. Those laws and regulations will not be open to challenge on the ground that they are inconsistent with or take away or abridge any of the rights conferred by any of the provisions of Part III of the Constitution.”
“Acts and Regulations, which are or will be included in the Ninth Schedule on or after April 24, 1973 will not receive the protection of Article 31B for the plain reason that in the face of the judgment in Kesavananda Bharati (supra) there was no justification for making additions to the Ninth schedule with a view to conferring a blanket protection on the laws included therein.”
“For these reasons, we are of the view that the Amendment introduced by section 4 of the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 does not damage or destroy the basic structure of the Constitution. That Amendment must, therefore, be upheld on its own merits.”
“The principle of stare decisis permits the saving of laws the validity of which has been accepted or recognised over the years. It does not require or sanction that, in future too, laws may be passed even though they are invalid or unconstitutional. Future perpetration of illegality is no part of the doctrine of stare decisis.”
Provisions interpreted
Related judgments
- Follows Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)“Thus, the main question arising before us has to be decided by applying the ratio of Kesavananda Bharati (supra), in its pristine form.” (page 13)
- Follows Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980)“Those clauses were declared unconstitutional, as being beyond the amending power of the Parliament, by a very recent decision of this Court in Minerva Mills which was pronounced on July 31, 1980.” (page 13)
- Followed in I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007)
Case and bench
- Parties
- Waman Rao & Ors. etc. etc. v. Union of India and Ors.
- Case
- Writ Petition Nos. 656-660, 512-533 and 503-511 of 1977 (with Review Petitions of 1977 and Writ Petition No. 63 of 1977)
- Decided
- 9 May 1980
- Bench
- Y.V. Chandrachud, P.N. Bhagwati, V.R. Krishna Iyer, V.D. Tulzapurkar, A.P. Sen
- Opinions
- Unanimous order of the Court dated 9 May 1980, with reasons given later. Chandrachud, C.J. wrote the main judgment. Bhagwati, J. agreed with the order, adopted as his reasons those in his Minerva Mills opinion, and held that stare decisis also sustains Article 31A; Krishna Iyer, J. agreed with the Chief Justice but found some observations on Articles 31A, 31B and 31C wider than necessary, adding a rider on stare decisis. Tulzapurkar and Sen, JJ. wrote no opinion.
Questions on this case
2 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.