CASE ANALYSIS

OF
WAMAN RAO AND ORS
vs.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
(1981) 2 SCC 362
By:-
ISHAAN PHUKAN

Batch of 2019-2024, Course: BA LLB

Symbiosis Law School, Noida

E-mail: ishaanphukan@gmail.com

January 16, 2022

 CASE ANALYSIS OF WAMAN RAO AND ORS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND
ORS (1981) 2 SCC 362

Abstract

This is a case analysis of the landmark case of Waman Rao and Ors v. Union of India and
Ors. The case has been analysed under the following heads, namely; Introduction, Brief Facts
of the Case, Issues of the Case, Judgement, Dissenting Views, Critical Overview, Conclusion,
Suggestion and References. The judgement explores the validity of the Articles 31A, 31B and
31C. It also attempts to answer the question regarding the validity of the 40 th constitutional
amendment as well as the applicability of the doctrine of stare decisis. This analysis aims to
provide a brief overview of the judgement to the reader.

Keywords – Judgement, Basic Structure, Constitution, Amendment, Court.

Introduction

The Constitution of India is a dynamic document that has evolved through the times and
adapted to the needs of the nation. The Courts of Law have played a major role by setting the
path for change with several landmark judgements. Waman Rao v. Union of India 1 is one
such landmark case where the validity of the Articles 31A 2, 31B3 and Article 31C4 were
examined by the Supreme Court in light of the Doctrine of Basic Structure. The five judge
bench headed by Chief Justice Y. V Chandrachud deliberated upon several important legal
questions which it addressed in a lengthy but eloquent judgement spanning several pages.
The judgment drew an important line in the applicability of the Doctrine of Basic Structure
and held that the same ought not to have retrospective effect as regards to the decisions
rendered prior to the introduction of the doctrine.

Brief Facts of the Case

In 1972, the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala 5
laid down the Doctrine of Basic Structure. While it successfully repelled the attempts of the
Government to alter certain parts of the Constitution, it also rendered several regulations and
acts open to challenge on the ground of violation of the Doctrine of Basic Structure. One such
act was the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act of 1961, which
imposed a ceiling on agricultural holdings. In 1976, the Principal Act and the Amending Acts
were challenged by over 2660 petitioners in the case of Vithalrao Udhaorao Uttarwar v. State
of Maharashtra6 in the High Court of Bombay. The High Court stated that the said acts were
included in the Ninth Schedule and hence were not open to challenge on the ground of
violation of Fundamental Rights. It also repelled the challenges to the validity of Articles
31A and Article 31B on the ground that these provisions formed an important part of the
agrarian reforms of the Indian Government. An appeal petition was made against the decision
of High Court of Bombay in the case of Dattatraya Govind Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra 7
in 1977, but was rejected by the Supreme Court. As these judgements were delivered during
the time when the Proclamation of Emergency was in operation, a petition seeking the review

1
Waman Rao v. Union of India, [1981] 2 SCC 362, [1981] 2 SCR 1.
2
Indian Constitution, Article 31A.
3
Indian Constitution, Article 31B.
4
Indian Constitution, Article 31C.
5
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, [1973] 4 SCC 225, [1973] AIR 1461 (SC).
6
Vithalrao Udhaorao Uttarwar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1977 BOM 99.
7
Dattatraya Govind Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra, [1977] AIR 915, [1977] 2SCR 790.
of the judgement passed in the Dattatraya case (Supra) was filed in the Supreme Court once
the emergency was revoked. It is this petition that became the present case of Waman Rao v.
Union of India (Supra).

Issues of the Case

In the given case, the Court framed the following primary issues -

1. Whether the Parliament transgressed its powers in amending the Constitution in

enacting Article 31A(1)(a) by way of amendment of the Constitution?
2. Whether article 31A (1) gives sufficient protection to the laws included under it from
being challenged on the alleged ground of fundamental rights namely articles 14, 19
and 31?
3. Whether Article 31B which provides for the Ninth Schedule can be challenged on the
grounds of violation of the Fundamental Rights of the citizens?
4. Whether Article 31C which aims to achieve the goals laid down under article 39 is
open to challenge on the grounds of violation of Fundamental Rights?
5. Whether the proclamation of emergency was mala-fide and the 40th amendment
which was enacted by extending the life of the parliament were valid or not?
6. Whether the doctrine of stare decisis can be applied in upholding the constitutional
validity of any Article of the constitution or this principle can apply on to laws sought
to be protected by those Articles?

Judgement

Validity of Article 31A

Article 31A(1)(a) states that “notwithstanding anything contained in Article 13 8, no law

providing for the acquisition of any estate or right by the State or modification or
extinguishment of any right shall be termed as void on the ground that it is in violation of the
Fundamental Rights conferred under Article 149 and 1910 of the Constitution.”

The court rejected the first issue by referring to the true object of Article 31A, which it
highlighted was to remove inequalities in the matter of agricultural holdings. It boldly stated
that the first amendment is aimed at removing social and economic inequalities in the
8
Indian Constitution, Article 13.
9
Indian Constitution, Article 14.
10
Indian Constitution, Article 19.
agricultural sector and in the process, other inequalities may arise incidentally. Such
inequalities cannot damage the basic structure of the Constitution. Thus, it upheld that the
Parliament did not transgress its powers in amending the Constitution in enacting Article
31A(1)(a) by way of amendment of the Constitution.

As regards to the second issue, the court referred to the precedents set by four landmark
cases, namely Sankariprasad v. Union of India 11, Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan 12, Golak
Nath13 and most importantly the case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (Supra). The
court highlighted that in each of these cases, the validity of Article 31A and 31B have been
aptly tested and upheld. Relying on the given precedents, the Court upheld the validity of
Article 31A.

Validity of 31B

Article 31B provides that none of the Acts or Regulations contained in the Ninth Schedule
nor any of the provisions thereof shall be deemed to be void, on the ground that it is
inconsistent with the Fundamental Rights of the citizens.

The Court, while ascertaining the validity of section 31B, relied on the case law of
Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala (Supra) to set a distinct date of 24 th April, 1973, before
which the acts incorporated in the Ninth Schedule could not be challenged. The Court
observed that a large number of properties would have changed hands and several new titles
would have been established with the belief that the laws included in the Ninth Schedule are
immune from challenge on the ground of violating Articles 14, 19 and 31. So, to upset all the
claims and title by retrospectively removing the immunity ensured by Article 31B would lead
to severe chaos in the order of the lawful society. Further, the Court also observed that one of
the reasons which make drawing a line convenient is that, of the 66 items placed in the Ninth
Schedule prior to the Kesavananda judgement, majority of them pertained to agrarian
reforms.

So, the court held that all the acts or regulations included in the Ninth Schedule prior to April
24, 1973 will receive the complete protection of Article 31B. However, it refused to extend
the same protection to the acts or regulations included in the Ninth Schedule after April 24,

11
Sankari Prasad Singh Deo vs Union Of India, [1951] AIR 458, [1952] SCR 89.
12
Sajjan Singh vs State Of Rajasthan, [1965] AIR 845, [1965] 1SCR 933.
13
I.C Golaknath v. State of Rajasthan, [1967] AIR 1643, [1967] 2SCR 762.
1973 on the rationale that prima facie in the Kesavananda judgement, there was no
justifications to enable the making of additions to the Ninth Schedule with the aim of
providing a blanket protection to the laws included therein. Thus, any additions made to the
Ninth Schedule on or after 24th April, 1973 will be valid only if they don’t damage or destroy
the basic structure of the Constitution. Further, to give it a practical application, these
additions were also excluded from the safeguards of Article 31A and unamended Article 31C.

Validity of Article 31C

Article 31C prior to the 42nd Amendment states that no law giving effect to the directive
principles of state specified under clauses (b) and (c) of Article 39 can be challenged on the
ground that it violates the Fundamental Rights conferred under part III of the Constitution.

While appreciating the arguments put forward by the petitioners, the court highlighted that
the opening clause of Article 31C was already upheld by the judgement in Kesavanda
Bharati. The argument put forward by the petitioners that it is impossible to discern a ratio
based on the welter of judgements delivered in the case of Kesavananda Bharati because each
Judge gave a different reasoning as to their relevant conclusions was rejected by the Court.
The Court observed that six Judges who were in minority in the Kesavanada Bharati upheld
the first part of Article 31C and their views were supported by Khanna J., due to his own set
of reasons. Thus, it highlighted that these seven Judges constituted the majority view as
regards to the validity of Article 31C and a common ratio could indeed be derived from the
same. The court also stated that 31C gives protection to a well-defined and limited category
of directive principles vide Article 39 which are vital for the well-being of the country and
the welfare of its people. Thus, the validity of the un-amended Article 31C was upheld by the
Supreme Court.

Validity of the 40th Amendment

Apart from the challenges to the constitutional validity of Articles 31A, 31B and 31C, the
petitioners also challenged the 40th constitutional amendment along with the Emergencies
proclaimed in 1971 and 1975, which it termed as being malafied. It contended that the 40 th
constitutional amendment was not valid as it was passed in the unlawfully extended duration
of the Lok Sabha.
The petitioners emphasized that the Courts have the jurisdiction to enquire about the proper
exercise of the power of the President to proclaim an emergency vide Article 352 as well as
to extend the continuance of the emergency.

The Court held the proclamation of the emergency in 1971 was prima facie lawful as the
danger to the security of the nation was clear and there existed a manifested justification for
such course of action. However, as regards to the continuation of emergency in 1975, the
Court highlighted that it has its inherent limitations and are bound by the rules of evidence
and the principles of preponderance of possibilities. Thus, the evidence set forth by the
petitioners was not sufficient enough to declare the continuation of the emergency as
malafied and non-existent.

Further, the Court held that the extension of the duration of Lok Sabha was valid since it was
made when a lawful emergency was in operation. Thus, the 40th constitutional amendment,
which was made in the extended session of the Lok Sabha was upheld as being valid and
lawful.

Doctrine of Stare Decisis

On the question of whether the doctrine of stare decisis can be applied in upholding the
constitutional validity of any Article of the constitution or only on to laws sought to be
protected by those Articles, the Court affirmed the latter position. However, the Court failed
to provide any reasons for the same.

Further, the Court added that it is not inclined to apply the doctrine of stare decisis in
adjudging the validity of Article 31A as it stands valid on its own independent merits. It listed
out four reasons for the same. Firstly, it stated that Article 31A breathes its own validity by
drawing sustenance from the basic tenets of the Constitution. Secondly, it referred to several
landmark precedents which upheld the validity of Article 31A and highlighted that in each of
this precedents, the application of the doctrine of stare decisis is absent. Thirdly, the Court
observed that the principle of stare decisis ought to have a restricted use in areas of law which
can be rectified by the legislature itself. Lastly, it noted that the doctrine of stare decisis can
only be applied to laws which Articles such as 31A protects and not to the Article 31A itself.
To support its last reasoning, the Court highlighted that while the doctrine permits the saving
of laws in lieu of it being recognized over the years, it does not sanction that in the future too,
such laws may be passed irrespective of its illegality.
Dissenting Views

In the given case, Bhagwati J. dissented with the majority view on the point that the doctrine
of stare decisis cannot be applied in upholding the validity of Article 31A. He referred to the
case of Ambika Prasad Mishra v. State of U.P 14, wherein the same bench as in the present
case, upheld the constitutional validity of Article 31A by applying the doctrine of stare
decisis.

Similarly, Krishna Iyer J. dissented that he had expressly upheld the doctrine of stare decisis
in the case of Ambika Prasad (Supra) and therefore he could not agree with the present view
that the doctrine of stare decisis cannot be invoked to uphold the constitutional validity of
Article 31A. He boldly emphasized that the rulings have great respect and binding value until
reversed by the judgements of larger benches. He subtly reminded that the judgement in the
case in Ambika Prasad (Supra) had not been overruled yet. He wisely concluded by recalling
an aphorism from the Sermon of the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 6, which
stated, “Enough unto the day is the evil thereof.”

Critical Overview

The decision passed by the Apex Court is indeed a landmark one which demarcated a line
between the acts placed under the Ninth Schedule prior and post the Kesavanada Bharati
judgement. It aptly utilized the principle of ‘prospective overruling’ to safeguard the laws
included in the Ninth Schedule prior to the Kesavanada Bharati judgement as well as to check
the laws included thereafter. It also upheld the validity of the Articles 31A, 31B and un-
amended 31C.

However, while dealing with the question of stare decisis, the Court failed to present any
reasons for its decision which left a void that is yet to be cleared. One can find a similar void
as to the reasoning for upholding the validity of Article 31C. On an overview, one can find
that the Court has placed utmost reliance on precedents to justify the validity of the given
Articles, yet it has refused to accept the doctrine of stare decisis. Considering the fact that
stare decisis is essentially the principle of binding precedents, it seems like an ironical
approach to rely so heavily on precedents to validate the Articles and yet refute the
applicability of the doctrine of stare decisis in the same breath.

14
Ambika Prasad Mishra v. State of U.P, [1980] AIR 1762, [1980] 3SCR 1159.
Overall this landmark decision has successfully specified the laws which can be challenged
vide the doctrine of basis structure of the Constitution by demarcating a proper separating
line. Thus, the Supreme Court has indeed set an effective precedent with lasting affects in the
case of Waman Rao v. Union of India.

Conclusion

As a conclusion, it is important to remember that the Constitution is a dynamic document that

is supposed to adapt to the changing needs of the nation. However, to be able to be effective,
it must be free from the burden of challenges of the past. If our legal system is consistently
challenged on the basis of acts that have long fulfilled their due purpose, it would never be
able to progress ahead into the future. To enable such challenge to the Constitution would be
akin to opening the Pandora’s Box. Thus, we can say that the Supreme Court has indeed
rendered a landmark judgement in the case of Waman Rao (Supra) in demarcating the laws
which could be open to the challenge on the ground of the doctrine of basic structure. It
enabled the nation to progressively move ahead without pondering excessively over the acts
of the past. Hence, it has proved to be one of the most effective judgements pronounced by
the Supreme Court and its legacy stands rooted till date.
References

The Court, while delivering its judgement has primarily referred to the following cases –

 Shankari Prasad v. Union of India, [1951] AIR 458, [1952] SCR 89.
 Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, [1965] AIR 845, [1965] 1SCR 933.
 I. C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab, [1967] AIR 1643, [1967] 2SCR 762.
 Kesavanada Bharati v. State of Kerala, [1973] 4 SCC 225, [1973] AIR 1461 (SC).
 Ambika Prasad v. State of UP, [1980] AIR 1762, [1980] 3SCR 1159.

Further, the case of Ambika Prasad v. State of UP holds immense significance because the
judgement of the case was delivered by the present Coram of Waman Rao and the deferring
judgement in the case of Waman Rao (Supra) led to the dissenting opinions by both Khanna
J. and Krishna Iyer J.

Brief About the Author

Ishaan Phukan is a 3rd year BA.LLB. student at Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA. He has a
keen interest in Constitutional Law, Criminal law and Political Science. He is currently
interning at ProBono India.