New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday reserved verdict on the scope and ambit of the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution (Article 31-B) and Parliament's powers to insert any law into it to keep it beyond judicial review.

A nine-judge Constitution Bench was examining the validity of the insertion into the Schedule of legislation including the Tamil Nadu Act providing for a 69 per cent reservation, and laws relating to land reforms.

Appearing on behalf of Attorney-General Milon Banerjee, Additional Solicitor-General Gopal Subramanium supported the Centre's stand.

Constitutionally valid

He asserted that Article 31-B was constitutionally valid and it did not offend the basic structure of the Constitution. "However, any amendment which is relatable to Article 31-B, i.e any amendment to the Ninth Schedule, must not violate the basic structure. To examine whether the basic structure has been violated would necessarily involve powers of judicial review."

There was no challenge in the present proceedings that Article 31-B violated the basic structure.

`Not challenged'

As a constitutional provision was not challenged, "there is no occasion to whittle down its operation by a process of interpretation. Courts would be bound by all provisions of the Constitution including such a provision which per se does not violate the basic structure."

Mr. Subramanium maintained that the essence of the apex court judgment in the Keshavananda Bharati case was that constitutional provisions could be amended as long as they did not emasculate the basic structure.

"However, any amendment Act, passed with reference to Article 31-B, could be challenged on the ground that it was violative of the basic structure."

He said: "Article-31 B is a device for saving laws. It has to be read along with the Ninth Schedule and it does not define the category of laws, which is to receive its protection. Thus no Act can be placed in the Ninth Schedule except by Parliament and since the Ninth Schedule is part of the Constitution, the provisions governing the Constitution must be complied with."

Violation of fundamental rights pursuant to a law passed by Parliament would not lead to an inference of violation of the basic structure.

`Uplifting trait of law'

"A constitution amendment placing a law in the Ninth Schedule is to uplift the trait of the law and to import to it the characteristics of the Constitution that is representative of people's sovereignty."

Article 31-B was valid and all laws included in the Ninth Schedule on or after April 24, 1973 would be entitled to the protection of Article 31-B if the amendment did not damage or destroy the basic structure.

"If a law which has been held violative of Articles 14, 19 and 31 is included in the Ninth Schedule, such an amendment would be curative in character and by removing the very rights which have been found violated, the Act is given retrospective efficacy."

Once a law was included in the Ninth Schedule the contents of that statute should be tested only with reference to the basic structure, Mr. Subramanium said.

"No blanket immunity"

Earlier senior counsel, Fali Nariman and Harish Salve concluded their reply by maintaining that Article 31-B was intended only as a one-time measure and blanket immunity could not be given for all laws included in the Ninth Schedule.

Chief Justice Y.K. Sabharwal and Justices Ashok Bhan, Arijit Pasayat, B.P. Singh, S.H. Kapadia, C.K. Thakker, P.K. Balasubramanyan, Altamas Kabir and D.K. Jain were on the Bench, which heard marathon arguments spread over five days.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail