2007 (1) TMI 541 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether an Act or Regulation which, or a part of which, is or has been found by this Court to be violative of one or more of the fundamental rights conferred by Articles 14, 19 and 31 can be included in the Ninth Schedule? Whether it is only a constitutional amendment amending the Ninth Schedule that damages or destroys the basic structure of the Constitution that can be struck down? Held that - If vacant land owned by a person fell within the ceiling limits for an urban agglomeration, he was outside the purview of the Act and could not be governed by any of the provisions of the Act. It was, therefore held by the learned Judge that the provisions of Section 27(1) were invalid insofar as they sought to affect a citizens right to dispose of his urban property in an urban agglomeration within the ceiling limits. Krishna Iyer, J. did not discuss the provisions of Section 27(1), but he agreed with the learned Chief Justice regarding the partial invalidation of Section 27(1). The learned Chief Justice had said in his brief earlier order that Section 27(1) was invalid insofar as it imposed a restriction on the transfer of any urban or urbanisable property within the ceiling area. Such property was transferable without the constraints mentioned in Section 27(1). What is relevant is that whereas Tulzapurkar, J. and A.P.Sen, J. struck down Section 27(1), in part, for violation of the fundamental rights conferred by Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) respectively, without more, Krishna Iyer, J. said What is a betrayal of the basic feature is not a mere violation of Article 14 but a shocking, unconscionable or unscrupulous travesty of the quintessence of equal justice. If a legislation does go that far it shakes the democratic foundation and must suffer the death penalty. Refer these writ petitions and appeals for decision to a larger Bench, preferably of nine learned Judges. The papers and proceedings shall be placed before the Honble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the validity of Acts inserted in the Ninth Schedule after being struck down by courts.
2. Interpretation of Article 31B and its application to constitutional amendments.
3. Examination of the basic structure doctrine concerning amendments to the Ninth Schedule.
4. Validity of inclusion of Acts in the Ninth Schedule post the Kesavananda Bharti case.
5. Evaluation of the constitutionality of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.

Issue 1: Challenge to the validity of Acts inserted in the Ninth Schedule after being struck down by courts.
The judgment discussed challenges to the validity of Acts inserted in the Ninth Schedule after being declared unconstitutional by courts. It highlighted the contention that such insertions could damage the basic structure of the Constitution by undermining judicial review. The case of Balmadies v. State of Tamil Nadu was cited to emphasize that Acts not related to agrarian reform cannot be protected under Article 31A. The judgment also noted the insertion of the Janmam Act and the West Bengal Land Holding Revenue Act, 1979, in the Ninth Schedule after being struck down by courts, raising concerns about the validity of such actions.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Article 31B and its application to constitutional amendments.
The judgment analyzed Article 31B, which validates Acts in the Ninth Schedule, emphasizing that Acts included therein are shielded from being void even if they violate fundamental rights. It referenced the Waman Rao case, stating that post-April 24, 1973, amendments to the Ninth Schedule could be challenged if they damage the basic structure of the Constitution. The judgment highlighted the importance of judicial review in ensuring the constitutionality of Acts included in the Ninth Schedule.

Issue 3: Examination of the basic structure doctrine concerning amendments to the Ninth Schedule.
The judgment delved into the basic structure doctrine, citing the Kesavananda Bharti case, which established that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution to damage its essential features. It discussed the need to assess the constitutional validity of amendments to the Ninth Schedule post-April 24, 1973, based on whether they uphold the basic structure of the Constitution. The judgment emphasized the significance of protecting fundamental rights and preventing Acts that violate them from receiving blanket protection under Article 31B.

Issue 4: Validity of inclusion of Acts in the Ninth Schedule post the Kesavananda Bharti case.
The judgment raised concerns about the validity of including Acts in the Ninth Schedule after the Kesavananda Bharti case, emphasizing the need to ensure that such inclusions do not undermine the basic structure of the Constitution. It highlighted the differing opinions within the judiciary regarding the constitutionality of Acts included in the Ninth Schedule post the landmark case, calling for a larger Bench to reconcile these inconsistencies.

Issue 5: Evaluation of the constitutionality of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.
The judgment discussed the case of Maharao Sahib Sri Bhim Singh Ji concerning the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, inserted in the Ninth Schedule. The Act was found partially unconstitutional by the judges, with Section 27(1) being struck down for violating Article 14 and Article 19(1)(f). The judgment highlighted the importance of protecting citizens' rights to property and ensuring that legislative provisions do not unduly restrict these rights. The differing opinions among the judges underscored the need for a larger Bench to clarify the constitutionality of such Acts.