Union Of India vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 October, 2019
“129. Further, the Court in Kesavananda case not only held that
Article 31B is not controlled by Article 31A but also specifically
upheld the Twentyninth Constitution Amendment whereby certain
Kerala Land Reform Acts were included in the Ninth Schedule after
25
those Acts had been struck down by the Supreme Court in
Kunjukutty Sahib v. State of Kerala, (1972) 2 SCC 364. The only
logical basis for upholding the Twentyninth Amendment is that the
Court was of the opinion that the mechanism of Article 31B, by
itself, is valid, though each time Parliament in exercise of its
constituent power added a law in the Ninth Schedule, such exercise
would have to be tested on the touchstone of the basic structure
test. [See Shelat & Grover, JJ., paras 607 & 608(7); Hegde &
Mukherjea, JJ., paras 73843, 744(8); Ray, J., paras 105560,
1064; Jaganmohan Reddy, J., para 1212(4); Palekar, J., para
1333(3); Khanna, J., paras 1522, 1536, 1537(xv); Mathew, J., para
1782; Beg, J., paras 1857(6); Dwivedi, J., para 1994, 1995(4) and
Chandrachud, J., paras 213641 and 2142(10).]