1971 (10) TMI 120 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Madras Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961.
2. Legislative Competence of the State Legislature to enact the Act.
3. Impact of the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964 on the Act.
4. Interpretation of Article 31B and the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Madras Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961:
The Act was challenged on the grounds that its provisions violated Articles 14, 19, and 31(2) of the Constitution. The main attacks were directed at Section 5, which fixed the ceiling area for land holdings, and Section 50, which provided for compensation. The Supreme Court previously held in Krishnaswamy Naidu's case that the definition of 'family' in Section 3(14) was artificial and discriminatory, thus violating Article 14. Similarly, the provisions in Section 50 regarding compensation were also found discriminatory. Consequently, the entire Act was struck down as unconstitutional.

2. Legislative Competence of the State Legislature to Enact the Act:
The Act was argued to be beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature under Entry 18 of List II of the Seventh Schedule. The contention was that the State could not frame a law under which the holdings of two individuals could be combined to determine the ceiling area. The Supreme Court, however, held that Entry 18 in List II must be construed in its widest amplitude, covering all rights in or over land, including measures for agrarian reform and land improvement. The Act was thus within the legislative competence of the State Legislature.

3. Impact of the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964 on the Act:
The Seventeenth Amendment included the Madras Act in the Ninth Schedule, thereby protecting it from challenges based on violation of fundamental rights. The Supreme Court noted that Article 31B and the Ninth Schedule cured any defects in the Acts mentioned therein, giving them retrospective effect from their dates of enactment. The inclusion in the Ninth Schedule meant that the Act could not be deemed void or ever to have become void due to inconsistency with Part III of the Constitution.

4. Interpretation of Article 31B and the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution:
Article 31B was interpreted to provide protection to the Acts listed in the Ninth Schedule from being challenged on the grounds of violation of fundamental rights. The Supreme Court held that the inclusion of an Act in the Ninth Schedule read with Article 31B overrode and rectified all defects due to inconsistency with fundamental rights, with retrospective effect from the date of enactment. Therefore, the Madras Ceilings Act did not need re-enactment by the State Legislature post the Seventeenth Amendment.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the attacks on the validity and legislative competence of the Madras Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, failed. The Act was protected under Article 31B and the Ninth Schedule, and the State Legislature was competent to enact the law under Entry 18 of List II. The decision reaffirmed that the Act assumed full force and vigour retrospectively after its inclusion in the Ninth Schedule.