Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(3) (a) Article 31-B became unconstitutional after Kesavanada's case (AIR 1973 SC 1461).

(b) At any rate, the inclusion of the Act in the Ninth Schedule by Thirty Fourth Amendment, affects the basic structure or essential feature of the Constitution, and does not get the protection of Article 31-B. (4) The definition of "family unit" is unrelated to agrarian reform, therefore Article 31-A does not protect the law from challenge under Articles 14. 19 and 31.

(5) Section 4 (1) fixing the 'ceiling area' in respect of a family unit read with the definitions of 'family unit' and 'person' affect the basic structure, as the said provision deprives a citizen to hold minimum property as provided by Section 4 (3) in respect of an individual. The right to hold minimum property is secured by the preamble to the Constitution and the provisions of Articles 19 (1) (f), 23, 24, 31, 39 (a) and therefore the deprivation of the said right of minimum existence by the aforesaid provisions affect the basic structure.

61. We shall now refer to the contention urged on behalf of the petitioners that Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution constitute the basic structure or essential features of the Constitution, and that the impugned provisions of the Act are not protected by the provisions of Articles 31-A, 31-B and 31-C from challenge on the ground of violation of the rights conferred by Articles 14 , and 19. The contention of all the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Supreme Court has held in Kesavananda Bharati's case that Parliament, cannot in exercise of the power of amendment conferred by Article 368 of the Constitution, destroy or damage the basic structure or essential features of the Constitution, and that fundamental rights including Articles 14, 19 constitute the basic structure or essential features of the Constitution and therefore Articles 31-A, 31-B and 31-C of the Constitution would not preclude challenge on the ground of violation of the basic structure or essential features of the Constitution. The learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents have cited passages from the Judgments of all the learned Judges in Kesavananda Bharati's case (supra) and contended that the majority view of the Supreme Court in the said decision is that fundamental rights constitute the basic structure or essential features of the Constitution and therefore the Constitution Amendment Acts introducing Articles 31-A. 31-B and 31-C, would not consider Constitutional immunity of the Act from challenge on the ground of violation of Articles 14 and id of the Constitution.

79. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the preamble to the Constitution and various other provisions of the Constitution to illustrate what constitutes the basic structure or essential features of the Constitution.

80. But we do not think it necessary to go into the broad question as to what constitute the basic structure or essential features of the Constitution. In these Writ Petitions the question that falls for consideration is whether the rights under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution constitute basic structure or essential features of the Constitution. None of the counsel however contended that Article 31 constitutes basic structure or essential features of the Constitution.

104. Khanna, J. held that judicial review had become an integral part of our constitutional system and a power had been vested in the High Court and Supreme Court to decide about the Constitutional validity of the provisions of the statute and "vesting of power of exclusion of judicial review in a Legislature including State Legislature, contemplated by Article 31-C in my opinion strikes at the basic structure of the Constitution." If Articles 14, 19 and 31 constitute the basic structure or essential features equally Article 31-C first part which precludes challenge of a law on the ground of violation of the said rights, would have been struck down as damaging or destroying the basic structures of the Constitution. But Article 31-C first part has been held to be valid by the majority. From this also it follows that Articles 14, 19 and 31 in so far as they relate to property rights do not constitute the basic structure or essential features of the Constitution.