Article 31B immunity under the Ninth Schedule defeated constitutional challenge to the Maharashtra and Hyderabad land laws.

Article 31B was treated as conferring full constitutional immunity on the Maharashtra Act and the earlier Hyderabad legislation placed in the Ninth Schedule, so a challenge under Articles 19 and 31 could not succeed. Section 38(E) inserted by amending legislation was also treated as protected because it formed part of the statutory scheme of the parent enactment already covered by the Ninth Schedule. The alternative objection based on want of legislative competence to enact retrospectively was not pursued further, and the reference to presidential assent did not affect the result. The constitutional challenge therefore failed and the legislation was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Maharashtra Act and the earlier Hyderabad legislation, including Section 38(E), were immune from challenge under Articles 19 and 31 of the Constitution by reason of their inclusion in the Ninth Schedule and whether the contention based on want of legislative competence to enact retrospectively survived.

Analysis: The protection of Article 31B extended full constitutional immunity to the scheduled enactments and their provisions, notwithstanding any contrary judicial determination. The Maharashtra Act and the Hyderabad Act were both included in the Ninth Schedule, and the amending legislation inserting Section 38(E) was treated as covered by the same protection because it formed part of the statutory scheme whose parent enactment stood protected. In that view, the attack founded on Articles 19 and 31 could not succeed. The alternative contention concerning retrospective competence was not pursued further, and the observation regarding presidential assent did not alter the result.

Conclusion: The constitutional challenge failed and the impugned legislation was upheld.

---