Waman Rao Case

In the case of Waman Rao v. Union of India, the Supreme Court drew a line of demarcation as April 24th, 1973, and held that the Basic Structure Doctrine should not be applied retrospectively to reopen the validity of any amendment to the Constitution which took place prior to that date.

Background
The case of Waman Rao v. Union of India was brought before the Supreme Court of India in 1981. The petitioner, Waman Rao, challenged the constitutional validity of the 31st Amendment Act, 1973, which inserted two new Articles, 31C and 31D, in the Constitution. The petitioner argued that these amendments violated the basic structure of the Constitution.

Key Arguments
The petitioner contended that the Basic Structure Doctrine, as propounded in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, should be applied retrospectively to reopen the validity of any amendment to the Constitution.

The respondents, on the other hand, argued that the Basic Structure Doctrine should not be applied retrospectively and that the validity of amendments prior to April 24th, 1973, should not be reopened.

Supreme Court Ruling
The Supreme Court, in its judgment, took note of the fact that the doctrine of prospective overruling had been recognized by the Court in the case of Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India. This doctrine allows the Court to declare a law unconstitutional but also suspend the operation of the declaration for a certain period of time, giving the legislature an opportunity to rectify the defect.

The Court held that the Basic Structure Doctrine should not be applied retrospectively to reopen the validity of any amendment to the Constitution which took place prior to April 24th, 1973. This meant that the amendments made to the Constitution before this date would not be subject to review on the grounds of violating the basic structure.

The Court reasoned that applying the Basic Structure Doctrine retrospectively would create uncertainty and instability in the constitutional framework. It was also noted that the doctrine had been recognized only in 1973 and applying it retrospectively would unsettle settled law.

Conclusion
In the Waman Rao case, the Supreme Court held that the Basic Structure Doctrine should not be applied retrospectively to reopen the validity of any amendment to the Constitution which took place prior to April 24th, 1973. This interpretation provided clarity and stability to the constitutional framework, ensuring that amendments made before the recognition of the Basic Structure Doctrine would not be subject to review on the grounds of violating the basic structure.