WAMAN RAO V. UNION OF INDIA (1981) Abhedya Rajeev LANDMARK JUDGMENT Sat, Aug 08, 2020, at ,11:41 PM SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Waman Rao and Ors vs Union of India (UOI) And Ors. On 13 November 1980 Citation: (1981) 2 SCC 362, 1981 2 SCR 1 BENCH: Y Chandrachud, A Sen, P Bhagwati, V Tulzapurkar, V K Iyer JUDGMENT Chandrachud, C.J. There was an Act called Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act 1962, which imposed an upper limit on agricultural lands. Afterwards, the ceiling was revised from time to time and certain further amendments were brought into operation. The legality of these Acts was challenged before the Bombay High Court on the ground that they take away the fundamental rights. Articles 31A and 31B were also brought under the purview of dispute on the ground that they contravene the basic structure of the constitution. But in the High Court level, all challenges were discarded. Against the decision, the appeal was filed in the Supreme Court in the case of Dattatraya Govind Vs State of Maharashtra (1977). But those appeals were too dismissed on reasons stated by the Court. This judgment of the Duttatraya case was delivered at some point in an emergency. As the emergency had been revoked the petitions were filed in the Court seeking an evaluation of the Duttatraya case. Thus, the present case has emerged as a review of the Dattatraya case. In this case, the main challenge was the constitutional legality of Articles 31A, 31B, and un-amended article 31C. It was strongly argued against the protecting nature of these articles which exclude all possibilities of a challenge to the laws included under the shield. They argued that such a shield will infringe certain fundamental rights enshrined under part III of the constitution. The appellants replied that the very provisions of the constitution which the respondents rely on to save impugned laws are void as the later amendments violate the basic essential structure of the constitution as set out in Keshavananda Bharati Case. The Petitioners, as well, challenged the validity of constitutional fortieth amendment on the ground that it was passed in such a period when the Parliament was not in lawful subsistence as it was on an extended tenure. The case majorly dealt with the constitutional validity of Articles 31A (1), 31B, and the 9th schedule and 31C. The proclamation of emergency was mala-fide or not and the 40th amendment which was enacted by extending the life of the parliament were valid or not. The Court while dealing with the mentioned issues held that Article 31A breathes its validity from the basic tenets of the constitution and it has satisfactorily survived all the challenges. For the 9th schedule, the regulation and acts included in it before the date of the Keshavananda Bharti case will be protected and cannot be challenged on the ground of inconsistency with Part III of the constitution. On the other hand, the Acts and regulations added after the said date can only find themselves placed in the Ninth Schedule if they can satisfy that they do not harm the basic structure of the constitution. In the issue of the mala-fide intention behind the proclamation of emergency, the Court found that evidence adduced was insufficient and adequate safeguard has been provided in the form of Article 352 clause (3). At present, it is no longer possible for the president to declare an emergency unless the decision of Union Cabinet has been communicated to him in a written form. Apart from that during that time, the peril on security and sovereignty of the country was prominent. Hence, there seems to be no mala-fide behind the proclamation of emergency. For that reason, on this ground, the Court held that the extension of the Lok Sabha was valid and Lawful. As a result, the 40th and 42nd constitutional amendments cannot be struck down on the ground that they were passed by the Lok Sabha which did not officially exist. Lastly, the court said that the doctrine of stare decisis can only be applied to the laws protected by the Article and not to the Article itself. Further added that it is disinclined to invoke the doctrine of stare decisis as Article 31A stands constitutionally valid on its own merits independently. This was based on the aforementioned reasons.