Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Pandit wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc

17. It was contended by Mr. R.P. Joshi, the learned counsel for the petitioners that to the extent the fundamental rights are part of the basic structure of the Constitution, even the validity of laws placed in the Nineth Schedule can be tested against the basic structure of the Constitution as held by the Supreme Court in I.R. Coelho (Dead) By LRs. vs. State of T.N. -

209. Statutes are many which though deprive a person of his property, have the protection of Article 30(1-A), Articles 31-A, 31-B, 31-C and hence are immune from challenge under Article 19 or Article 14, the basic structure and the rule of law, apart from the ground of legislative competence. In I.R. Pandit wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc Coelho case the basic structure was defined in terms of fundamental rights as reflected under Articles 14, 15, 19, 20, 21 and 32. In that case the Court held that statutes mentioned in Schedule IX are immune from challenge on the ground of violation of fundamental rights, but if such laws violate the basic structure, they no longer enjoy the immunity offered by Schedule IX."

19. ig Mr. Joshi, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. to the effect that a law, though protected by Article 31-A, may still be attacked on the ground that it violates the rule of law or basic structure of the Constitution.

However, there is nothing in the present provisions which can be shown to have violated the rule of law or the basic structure of the Constitution. Mr. Joshi also relied on certain observations of the Supreme Court in Sahara India (Firm), Lucknow vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-I and anr. - (2008) 14 SCC 151 and submitted that a hearing is an essential requirement before an administrative action is taken. In Sahara Pandit wp-256-12 & other connected matters.doc India, however, the Supreme Court was considering, whether a hearing before an order under Section 142(2-A) of the Income Tax Act requiring special audit was necessary. The Supreme Court observed that, an order under the said provisions of the Income Tax Act leads to serious civil consequences and though the provision does not either provide or bar a pre-decision hearing, the principle of audi alteram partem will have to be read in such a provision.