2010 (9) TMI 1232 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court upholds Janmam Act's inclusion in Ninth Schedule, affirming legislative competence

Glanrock Estate (P) Ltd. Versus The State of Tamil Nadu

Glanrock Estate (P) Ltd. Versus The State of Tamil Nadu - (2010) 10 SCC 96 Issues Involved:1. Scope of immunity to laws inserted in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution read with Article 31B.2. Legislative competence of the Tamil Nadu State Legislature to enact the Janmam Act (Act 24 of 1969).3. Applicability of the Janmam Act (Act 24 of 1969) in light of the Ceiling Act (Act 20 of 1972).Detailed Analysis:Scope of Immunity to Laws Inserted in the Ninth Schedule Read with Article 31B:The petitioner argued that the inclusion of the Janmam Act in the Ninth Schedule by the Constitution (Thirty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1974, amounted to a negation of judicial review, violating the basic structure of the Constitution. The petitioner emphasized the principles of 'separation of powers' and 'rule of law' as basic features of the Constitution. The Supreme Court found no merit in these submissions, emphasizing that the challenge was essentially in the context of the 'right to property,' which ceased to be a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(f) after the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978. The Court held that the Parliament's act of inserting the Janmam Act into the Ninth Schedule was a way of implementing the decision in Balmadies case, not obliterating it. The Court also explained that the doctrine of basic structure serves as a touchstone for judging the validity of constitutional amendments, and in this case, the inclusion of the Janmam Act did not violate the basic structure.Legislative Competence of the Tamil Nadu State Legislature to Enact the Janmam Act (Act 24 of 1969):The petitioner argued that the Tamil Nadu Legislature lacked the legislative competence to enact the Janmam Act, particularly regarding the transfer of forests without a public purpose. The Court dismissed this argument, stating that the legislative competence was not doubted in the Balmadies case and that the requirement of public purpose and compensation were conditions under Article 31(2) of the Constitution, not legislative requirements. The Court further noted that the Janmam Act was a measure of land reform and was aimed at abolishing feudal tenure, which falls under Entry 18, List II of the Constitution. Therefore, the Tamil Nadu Legislature had the competence to enact the Janmam Act.Applicability of the Janmam Act (Act 24 of 1969) in Light of the Ceiling Act (Act 20 of 1972):The petitioner contended that the Janmam Act could not be applied after the initiation of proceedings under the Ceiling Act. The Court found no merit in this argument, stating that the scope and objectives of the two Acts were different. The Janmam Act aimed at acquiring janmis' rights and introducing ryotwari settlement, whereas the Ceiling Act aimed at fixing landholding ceilings and distributing excess lands. The Court noted that before the ceiling could be determined under the Ceiling Act, the Janmam Act came into force, and therefore, the two Acts operated in different spheres.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the inclusion of the Janmam Act in the Ninth Schedule did not violate the basic structure of the Constitution. The Tamil Nadu Legislature had the legislative competence to enact the Janmam Act, and the Janmam Act could be applied despite the proceedings under the Ceiling Act. The Court emphasized that the overarching principles of equality and rule of law were not violated by the inclusion of the Janmam Act in the Ninth Schedule.