Judgment on Acts in Ninth Schedule: Protecting Constitutional Structure & Property Rights

The court examined challenges to the validity of Acts inserted in the Ninth Schedule after being declared unconstitutional, emphasizing the potential damage to the Constitution's basic structure. It discussed the interpretation of Article 31B and the basic structure doctrine, highlighting concerns about post-Kesavananda Bharti inclusions in the Ninth Schedule. In evaluating the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, the court found Section 27(1) unconstitutional for violating fundamental rights. The judgment underscored the importance of safeguarding citizens' property rights and the need for clarity on the constitutionality of such legislative provisions.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge to the validity of Acts inserted in the Ninth Schedule after being struck down by courts.
2. Interpretation of Article 31B and its application to constitutional amendments.
3. Examination of the basic structure doctrine concerning amendments to the Ninth Schedule.
4. Validity of inclusion of Acts in the Ninth Schedule post the Kesavananda Bharti case.
5. Evaluation of the constitutionality of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.

Issue 1: Challenge to the validity of Acts inserted in the Ninth Schedule after being struck down by courts.
The judgment discussed challenges to the validity of Acts inserted in the Ninth Schedule after being declared unconstitutional by courts. It highlighted the contention that such insertions could damage the basic structure of the Constitution by undermining judicial review. The case of Balmadies v. State of Tamil Nadu was cited to emphasize that Acts not related to agrarian reform cannot be protected under Article 31A. The judgment also noted the insertion of the Janmam Act and the West Bengal Land Holding Revenue Act, 1979, in the Ninth Schedule after being struck down by courts, raising concerns about the validity of such actions.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Article 31B and its application to constitutional amendments.
The judgment analyzed Article 31B, which validates Acts in the Ninth Schedule, emphasizing that Acts included therein are shielded from being void even if they violate fundamental rights. It referenced the Waman Rao case, stating that post-April 24, 1973, amendments to the Ninth Schedule could be challenged if they damage the basic structure of the Constitution. The judgment highlighted the importance of judicial review in ensuring the constitutionality of Acts included in the Ninth Schedule.

Issue 3: Examination of the basic structure doctrine concerning amendments to the Ninth Schedule.
The judgment delved into the basic structure doctrine, citing the Kesavananda Bharti case, which established that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution to damage its essential features. It discussed the need to assess the constitutional validity of amendments to the Ninth Schedule post-April 24, 1973, based on whether they uphold the basic structure of the Constitution. The judgment emphasized the significance of protecting fundamental rights and preventing Acts that violate them from receiving blanket protection under Article 31B.

Issue 4: Validity of inclusion of Acts in the Ninth Schedule post the Kesavananda Bharti case.
The judgment raised concerns about the validity of including Acts in the Ninth Schedule after the Kesavananda Bharti case, emphasizing the need to ensure that such inclusions do not undermine the basic structure of the Constitution. It highlighted the differing opinions within the judiciary regarding the constitutionality of Acts included in the Ninth Schedule post the landmark case, calling for a larger Bench to reconcile these inconsistencies.

Issue 5: Evaluation of the constitutionality of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.
The judgment discussed the case of Maharao Sahib Sri Bhim Singh Ji concerning the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, inserted in the Ninth Schedule. The Act was found partially unconstitutional by the judges, with Section 27(1) being struck down for violating Article 14 and Article 19(1)(f). The judgment highlighted the importance of protecting citizens' rights to property and ensuring that legislative provisions do not unduly restrict these rights. The differing opinions among the judges underscored the need for a larger Bench to clarify the constitutionality of such Acts.

---