Breaking News

Case Summary : Waman Rao And Ors vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.

Citations: (1981) 2 SCC 362, 1981 2 SCR 1

Bench: Y Chandrachud, A Sen, P Bhagwati, V Tulzapurkar, V K Iyer

INTRODUCTION

In the Waman Rao Case, the Supreme Court again reiterated the Basic Structure doctrine. The Waman Rao case held that amendments made to the 9th Schedule until the Kesavananda   judgment are valid, and those passed after that date can be subject to scrutiny through this it drew a line of demarcation.

FACTS OF THE CASE

This case basically emerged as a review of Dattatraya case where Article 31A and 31B of the constitution were brought into the question stating that they infringe the Basic Structure of the constitution. The validity of unamended Article 31C was also put in front of the bench. The argument was brought in relation to as to how the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands Act 1962, which imposed a ceiling on agricultural lands and how the protective shield violate certain fundamental rights given under Part III of the constitution.

ISSUES OF THE CASE

The constitutional article 31A, 31B, 31C were in the challenged on the fundamental grounds of article 14, 19 that provide us with certain rights. The doctrine of stare decisis was also brought into light and whether it can be applied in upholding the constitutional validity of any article of constitution or if it can be applied over the laws that sought to be protected by those articles.

JUDGMENT OF THE CASE

The court stated that the amendment brought was aimed in removing economic gap in the society and there are chances that certain inequalities may arise but it is impossible for any government to remove all such disparities without any hardships. Thus it does not affect the basic structure. The court stated that the doctrine can only be applied  to the laws protected by the article and not on the articles itself .

ANALYSIS

This decision is considered as on the benchmark judgment in the constitutional jurisprudence of India. It clarifies the doubts that arose in the Kesavnanda Case. It has set up a clear line of demarcation to avoid all kind of doubts.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *