Judicial Review in the Light of 9th Schedule: A Comprehensive Study | Important Acts and Laws for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

Abstract

• Article 31-B of the Indian constitution introduced the 9th schedule, granting exemption from judicial review for social and economic development.
• Initial adoption of socialist principles in India's constitution aimed at social, political, and economic justice.
• Challenges in achieving social and economic justice due to land acquisition issues prompted the creation of the 9th schedule.
• 9th schedule initially shielded land acquisition laws from judicial review, leading to conflicts between Parliament and the Supreme Court.
• Supreme Court rulings like IR Coelho case sought to balance legislative power with judicial review, preserving the basic structure of the Constitution.

Introduction / Historical Background

• Post-independence, land ownership laws were crucial for agrarian and industrial development in India.
• The 9th schedule, inspired by Ireland, aimed at redistributing land for community welfare and social justice.
• First constitutional amendment in 1951 focused on agrarian reforms, including land distribution and tenant protection.
• Land reforms faced legal challenges under fundamental rights, leading to conflicts between zamindars and the government.

Objective Behind The 9th Schedule

• The major aim was agrarian reforms and the abolition of the zamindari system to promote socio-economic development.
• Targeted removal of intermediaries in agriculture to eradicate poverty and uplift weaker sections, especially in the agricultural sector.
• The 9th schedule aimed to prevent judicial interference in property acquisition issues and reduce wealth concentration in land ownership.

Nature and Scope of Article 31-B in Regard to Ninth Schedule

• Today, the Ninth Schedule serves as a repository for laws deemed inconsistent but protected from judicial scrutiny by Article 31-B, which aims to regulate safeguards against constitutional breaches.
• Laws falling under Article 31-A receive additional protection under Article 31-B, offering a dual layer of immunity if specific conditions are met.
• The relationship between Article 31-A and Article 31-B is crucial. Article 31-B, prefaced by "without prejudice to the generality of the provision contained in Article 31-A," signifies their interconnected nature.
• The incorporation of laws into the Ninth Schedule has transformed it into a shield for legally questionable or invalid statutes.
• The interpretation of Article 31-B's opening words by the Supreme Court in cases like N.B. Jeejeebhoy v. Assistant Collector, Thana, emphasizes that laws specified in the Ninth Schedule enjoy immunity, even if they do not fall under Article 31-A.
• Clarifications regarding the applicability of laws in the Ninth Schedule, particularly concerning estate-related matters, were made in the landmark case Minerva Mills v. Union of India by Justice PN Bhagwati.
• The scope of Article 31-B extends beyond Article 31-A, encompassing a wider array of laws and providing validation for inconsistent statutes, shielding them from judicial review.

Retrospective Effect of Article-31-B

• Article-31-B possesses a unique characteristic of having a retrospective effect. This means that if a law is deemed void by the Supreme Court due to a violation of fundamental rights, it can receive protection under the 9th schedule of the constitution.
• Once a law is placed in the 9th schedule, it becomes shielded from being declared void, as observed in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Brijrnder Singh.
• By using the 9th schedule as a protective umbrella, Parliament can validate unconstitutional laws, thereby preventing them from being challenged in any court.

Conflict Between Parliament and Supreme Court: Case Study

• Conflicts arose between Parliament and the Supreme Court regarding the jurisdiction and application of the ninth schedule of the constitution.
• Parliament aimed to limit judicial interference in matters such as land acquisition for societal advancement, while the Supreme Court sought to uphold the balance of power and protect citizens' fundamental rights.
• The case of Shankari Prasad vs Union of India marked the beginning of conflicts, where certain land reform acts inserted in the ninth schedule were challenged for violating citizens' fundamental rights.
• In response to the Supreme Court's decisions, Parliament introduced amendments to restrict judicial review and protect its legislative actions.
• Subsequent cases such as Sajjan Singh vs State of Rajasthan and Golakhnath v. State of Punjab highlighted the ongoing tensions between the two branches of government.
• The Keshavananda Bharati Case played a significant role in clarifying the extent of Parliament's amending powers, emphasizing that while Parliament can amend laws, it cannot alter the basic structure of the constitution.
• Attempts by Parliament to circumvent judicial review, such as through the 39th constitutional amendment, were met with legal challenges to uphold the principles of democracy.

Conditions of Pre I.R. Coelho's Case

• Constitutional Amendments Challenge: The first challenge arose through the insertion of the ninth schedule in 1951 under the first constitution amendment, which was questioned in the Shankari Prasad v. Union of India case. It was argued based on the Japanese and U.S. constitutions, but the court upheld the parliament's wide power to amend the constitution under article 368, exempting it from article 13(2).
• Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan: In this case, the 17th amendment act was challenged. The court upheld the parliament's power to amend fundamental rights, noting that such amendments were made to facilitate agrarian and economic reforms.
• I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab: Following this case, the Supreme Court validated the 1st, 4th, and 17th amendment acts and ruled that from the date of the decision, parliament could not amend part-III fundamental rights of the constitution. The 24th amendment act was subsequently introduced to address this issue.
• Keshavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala: This landmark case established that while parliament can amend the constitution and fundamental rights, it cannot alter the basic structure. The 42nd amendment attempted to grant unlimited power to parliament but was later deemed unconstitutional in the Minerva Mills case.
• Waman Rao v. Union of India: The court decided that laws included in the ninth schedule before April 24, 1973, were not open to challenge. However, laws added after this date could be subject to judicial review for violation of basic features.
• I.R. Coelho Case: In 2007, this case affirmed that laws added to the ninth schedule after April 24, 1973, could be reviewed by the court for basic feature violations, underscoring the importance of judicial review.

Condition of Ninth Schedule in Post I.R Coelho Case - Subject to Judicial Review

• The conflict between the Parliament and the Supreme Court has been ongoing for decades. In a significant move, the Supreme Court intervened to resolve this conflict by subjecting laws in the Ninth Schedule to judicial review.
• Post the 1973 era, laws included in the Ninth Schedule can be challenged in court if they violate the basic structure of the Constitution, thus removing their immunity from judicial scrutiny.

Conclusion

• Judicial review has historically been a point of contention between the Parliament and the judiciary. While Parliament attempted to limit judicial review, the Indian judicial system has strived to maintain a balance of power.
• Initially, the inclusion of laws in the Ninth Schedule aimed to reform agrarian practices and eliminate the zamindari system. However, misuse of this schedule became evident with subsequent amendments.
• Various amendments, such as the 39th, 40th, and 76th, were misused to add unrelated laws to the Ninth Schedule. The landmark I.R. Coelho case marked a turning point where the judiciary upheld its power to review laws in the Ninth Schedule.
• The 44th Amendment Act eventually removed the right to property from the list of fundamental rights, marking a significant shift in the legal landscape.