Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. We are in these cases concerned with the validity of the Constitution (Thirty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1974 by which the Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1969, (in short `the Janmam Act') was included in the 9th Schedule under Article 31-B of the Constitution. These petitions earlier came up for consideration before a Bench of two Judges of this Court and the Bench felt that matter should be heard by a larger Bench since the case involved substantial questions of law pertaining to the interpretation of the Constitution. The order is reported in Manjushree Plantation Ltd. and others v. State of Tamil Nadu and others 1989 (3) SCC 282. Consequently, the matter came up before a Constitution Bench of five Judges on 14th September, 1999, and the Court felt that the impact of the judgment in Waman Rao and others etc. v. Union of India and others 1981 (2) SCC 362 be considered by a larger Bench so that apparent inconsistencies therein could be reconciled and the question whether an Act or Regulation which, or a part of which, was or had been found by this Court to be violative of one or more of the fundamental rights conferred by Articles 14, 19 and 31 would be included in the Ninth Schedule or whether it was only a constitutional amendment amending the Ninth Schedule that damaged or destroyed the basic structure of the Constitution that could be struck down. The order is reported in (1999) 7 SCC 580. The matter was then placed before a Constitution Bench of nine Judges. The fundamental question which came up for consideration was whether on and after 24th April, 1973, when the basic structure doctrine was propounded, was it permissible for the Parliament under Article 31-B to immunize legislations from fundamental rights by inserting them into the Ninth Schedule and also its effect on the power of judicial review of the Court. The Bench laid down certain parameters for the application of the basic structure doctrine propounded in His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru etc. v. State of Kerala and another (1973) 4 SCC 225 and later explained in M. Nagraj & Others v. Union of India & Others (2006) 8 SCC 212. The Court set at rest some of the inconsistencies which were brought in by Waman Rao's Case by analyzing the judgment from Sri Sankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India and State of Bihar (1952) SCR 89 to Kesavananda Bharati (supra) and then to Waman Rao's case (supra). The Court held that the theory of basic structure is applicable to the laws included in the Ninth Schedule also. The Court declared Article 31-B valid and held if there is any violation, restriction or encroachment upon the fundamental rights, guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21, the State must justify its action on the touch stone of the doctrine of basic structure of the Constitution. The judgment is reported in I.R. Coelho (Dead) by L.Rs. v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) 2 SCC 1. Coelho Principle:

Coelho held that the object behind Article 31B is to validate certain legislations, which otherwise may be invalid and not to obliterate Part III in its entirety or to dispense with judicial review of those legislations. The Court held that Article 21 confers right to life, which is the heart of the Constitution and when Article 21 read with Articles 14, 15 and 19 is sought to be eliminated not only the "essence of right" test but also the "right test" has to be applied, particularly when cases in Kesavananda Bharati (supra) and Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) Supp SCC 1, have expanded the scope of the basic structure to cover even some of the fundamental rights. Further, it was also pointed out by the Court that there are certain parts or aspects of the Constitution including Article 15, Article 21 read with Articles 14 and 19 which constitute the core values which if allowed to be abrogated would change completely the nature of the Constitution. The exclusion of the fundamental rights would result in nullification of the basic structure doctrine, the object of which is to protect the basic features of the Constitution. Referring to the "rights test" and the "essence of right" test, the Court held that there is a difference between both the tests and both form part of application of the basic structure doctrine. The Court pointed out that the power to grant absolute immunity at will is not compatible with basic structure doctrine and after 24.4.1973 the laws included in the Ninth Schedule would not have absolute immunity and thus validity of such laws could be challenged on the touchstone of basic structure as reflected in Article 21 read with Article 14, 15 and 19 and the principles underlying in those articles.
2. Coelho (supra) expressed in clear terms that the functional validity based on the power of immunity exercised by the Parliament under Article 368 is not compatible with the basic structure doctrine and, therefore, laws that are included in the Ninth Schedule have to be examined individually for determining whether the constitutional amendments by which they are put in the Ninth Schedule damage or destroy the basic structure of the Constitution and, in that process, the Court has to examine the terms of the statute, the nature of the rights involved and in substance the statute violates the special features of the Constitution and, for doing so, it has first to find whether the Ninth Schedule law is violative of Part III. If, on such examination, the answer is in the affirmative, the further examination is to be undertaken whether the violation found is destructive of the basic structure doctrine and if, on such further examination, the answer is again in affirmative, the result would be invalidation of the Ninth Schedule law.
First stage: We have to first examine whether the provisions of Janmam Act included in the Ninth Schedule by the Constitution (34th Amendment Act 1974) is violating any of the rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution, and if our answer is in the affirmative, our further enquiry would be whether the violation so found has abrogated or destroyed the basic structure of the Constitution. On such examination, if our answer is in the affirmative, the result would be invalidation of the Act to the extent of its violation. Petitioner, therefore, cannot succeed merely by establishing that any of his fundamental rights have been violated but he has to further show that the violation has the effect of abrogating the basic structure of the Constitution. Once it is established, the onus shift to the State to justify the infraction of the fundamental right, and if they fail, still State can show, that such infraction has not abrogated or destroyed the basic structure of the Constitution. Violation of fundamental right, may not, therefore, ipso facto, violate the basic structure doctrine, but a law which violates the basic structure invariably violates some of the rights guaranteed under Part III, but not vice versa. A law which infringes a basic feature of the Constitution cannot be validated under Article 31B, by inserting it in the 9th Schedule of the Constitution.