Waman Rao v. Union of India, (1981) 2 SCC 362 - Synopsis
Ahir Mitra 31 May 2021

Waman Rao v. Union of India

(1981) 2 SCC 362

In this case, Maharashtra Agricultural and Lands Act 1962 was applied and was amend numerous times. A petition was also filed stating that the act violates the fundamental rights, such as Article 31A and 31B of The Constitution of India and this was also challenged. The High Court rejected the plea and the case was filed in Supreme Court.

The legitimacy of Article 31A was questioned in this instance. In this case, the question was whether the Parliament had exercised its power by altering and repealing the Article. The Act's legality was being challenged in the Bombay High Court on the grounds that it infringed on fundamental rights. Articles 31A and 31B were also challenged on the grounds that they violated the Constitution's Doctrine of Basic Structure.

It was decided that just because a case violates fundamental rights does not mean it is also harming the fundamental framework. The Supreme Court ruled that no government policy can be declared unconstitutional because it violates basic rights. In this example, a 4:1 ratio was used to make the decision. The court upheld all three provisions, concluding that the parliament's primary goal was to keep the economic divide in society intact.

It also cleared the ambiguity created by the Kesavananda Bharati case[1], stating that all acts and regulations put in the ninth schedule prior to the date of Kesavananda Bharati's judgment cannot be challenged in court on the basis of fundamental rights violations. Despite this, the court ruled that the rules and regulations that pass the basic structure must be followed. Furthermore, the petitioners challenged the 40th amendment passed during the emergency on the ground it was passed by extending the time period of the Parliament. 

The central issue, in this case, was the power struggle between Parliament and the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has always ensured that no one abuses their position and that laws are not changed unnecessarily for the benefit of a single individual.

The Supreme Court's ruling in the matter of Waman Rao v. Union of India is considered a landmark ruling that is still used today. The ruling drew a line between Acts placed under the Ninth Schedule previous to the Kesavananda decision and Acts enacted under the Ninth Schedule after the Kesavananda judgment. The court concluded, sometimes known as the "Doctrine of Prospective Overruling," that any laws put under the Ninth Schedule previous to the Kesavananda verdict cannot be called into question for infringing Fundamental Rights, but that laws enacted after the judgment can be challenged in court. Furthermore, this case determined on legal issues that were quite important.

The legitimacy of Articles 31A and 31B, which were introduced by the first constitutional amendment in 1951, and unamended Article 31C, which was introduced by the twenty-fifth amendment Act, was affirmed by the court. However, while dealing with the notion of stare decisis, the court did not give any justification for its conclusion, leaving it open to interpretation.


[1] (1973) 4 SCC 225; AIR 1973 SC 1461.

×

C2RM… To Know More

Something Awesome Is In The Work

0

DAYS

0

HOURS

0

MINUTES

0

SECONDS

Sign-up and we will notify you of our launch.
We’ll also give some discount for your effort :)

* We won’t use your email for spam, just to notify you of our launch.
×

SAARTH… To Know More

Launching Soon : SAARTH, your complete client, case, practise & document management SAAS application with direct client chat feature.

If you want to know more give us a Call at :+91 98109 29455 or Mail info@soolegal.com