Waman Rao Case | Important Acts and Laws for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

Introduction

• The case of Waman Rao v. Union of India in 1981 involved a crucial examination by the Supreme Court concerning the validity of Article 31A and Article 31B of the Indian Constitution in light of the basic structure doctrine established in the Kesavananda Bharati case.
• The Court emphasized that the basic structure doctrine should not be applied retroactively, implying that decisions made before the doctrine's introduction would remain intact.
• Consequently, acts and regulations listed in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution before the Kesavananda decision were deemed valid, while subsequent amendments to the schedule could be disputed if they clashed with the basic structure doctrine.

Key Details of the Waman Rao Case

• Facts of the Case:
  • The Bombay High Court was confronted with a challenge regarding the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 27 of 1961, which aimed to restrict agricultural land holdings.
  • The High Court ruled that certain provisions and amendments, despite potentially affecting Part III of the Constitution, were shielded from challenge due to their inclusion in the Ninth Schedule.
• State of Emergency:
  • During a state of emergency, the enforcement of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution was suspended.
  • The constitutionality of Articles 31A and 31B was also contested, with the High Court ultimately upholding their validity.
  • Appeals against this judgment were dismissed during the emergency period.
• Post-Emergency Review:
  • After the emergency situation ended, a petition requesting a review of the High Court's judgment was considered in the Waman Rao vs. Union of India case.

Issues Raised

• Did Parliament exceed its amending power by introducing Article 31A(1)(a) through the 1st Constitutional Amendment?
• Does Article 31A(1) grant immunity to laws from being challenged based on violations of Fundamental Rights, including Articles 14, 19, and 31?
• Can Article 31B (establishing the Ninth Schedule) be contested for infringing upon Fundamental Rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution?
• Can Article 31C (aiming to achieve goals outlined in Article 39) be disputed on grounds of inconsistency with citizens' Fundamental Rights?
• Was the 40th Amendment, enacted during a state of emergency, valid in extending Parliament's time period?
• Is the Doctrine of Stare Decisis applicable for upholding the constitutional validity of any Article of the Constitution, or is it limited to upholding laws protected under those Articles?

Supreme Court's Judgement in Waman Rao Case

The Validity of Article 31A

• In the Waman Rao v. Union of India case, the Supreme Court deliberated on the constitutional validity of Article 31A. The Court clarified that laws limiting Fundamental Rights are not necessarily against the Constitution's basic structure.
• The introduction of Article 31A through the 1st constitutional Amendment was aimed at bolstering Zamindari Abolition Laws and tackling future challenges in the agricultural sector.
• The Court acknowledged the need to address social and economic disparities in agriculture, highlighting that while efforts to address inequalities may lead to new ones, they do not violate the Constitution's core principles.

The Validity of Article 31B

• Article 31B, in conjunction with the Ninth Schedule, shields laws from being invalidated for conflicting with Fundamental Rights. The Court ruled that laws in the Ninth Schedule before the Kesavananda Bharati case would be protected under Article 31B.
• However, laws added to the Ninth Schedule after Kesavananda could be subject to scrutiny for violating the Constitution's basic structure.

The Validity of Article 31C

• Article 31C, introduced through the Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act, 1971, safeguards laws implementing directive principles from being invalidated for infringing on Fundamental Rights.
• The Court upheld Article 31C, stating that it reinforces the Constitution's basic structure by promoting directive principles outlined in Article 39.

The Validity of the 40th Amendment

• The 40th constitutional Amendment of 1976 faced scrutiny regarding the extension of the Lok Sabha's term during the emergency period of 1975. The Court deemed the Amendment lawful, considering the necessity of the measures taken during the emergency.

The Doctrine of Stare Decisis

• In the case under consideration, the Court deliberated on whether the doctrine of stare decisis could be applied to Articles of the Constitution or was limited to laws protected by those Articles. The Court's ruling favored the latter interpretation, although it did not provide specific reasoning for this determination.
• Regarding the application of the doctrine of stare decisis to uphold Article 31A, the Court referenced the Waman Rao case, where it set aside the issue as Article 31A had already been upheld in a previous case, Ambika Prasad Mishra v. State of U.P (1980), based on its own merits. The Court noted that previous cases such as Keshavananda Bharati, Sajjan Singh, Golaknath, and Shankari Prasad did not raise or decide the validity of Article 31A explicitly.
• The Shankari Prasad case focused on whether constitutional amendments fell within the scope of Article 13(2), with the Court ruling in the negative. Sajjan Singh called for a reconsideration of the Shankari Prasad judgment, Golaknath did not question any constitutional amendment, and Kesavananda did not explicitly address the validity of Article 31A.
• As the issue of Article 31A's validity was not raised in prior cases, the Court concluded that the doctrine of stare decisis could not uphold it. The Court clarified that rules like stare decisis apply to uphold the constitutional validity of laws protected by Articles, such as Articles 31A, 31B, and 31C, rather than the Articles themselves.
• However, Justice Bhagwati dissented, arguing that the majority had upheld Article 31A by invoking stare decisis rather than considering its merits. Justice Bhagwati contended that the precedent set by the Keshavananda Bharati case, which upheld Article 31A, should have bound the present decision.

Conclusion

• The Waman Rao case dealt with the constitutional validity of Article 31A, Article 31B, and Article 31C of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that laws falling under Article 31A, despite curbing Fundamental Rights, did not violate the Constitution's basic structure.
• Laws listed in the Ninth Schedule before the Kesavananda Bharati case were shielded by Article 31B, but those added after Kesavananda were open to scrutiny. Article 31C, safeguarding laws aimed at implementing directive principles, was upheld by the Court. Additionally, the Court clarified that the doctrine of stare decisis applies to laws protected by the Constitution, not to the Articles themselves, thereby influencing subsequent interpretations of the Constitution.