Waman Rao v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 271

 Waman Rao v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 271

                                       FACTS OF THE CASE

Act known as “Maharashtra Agricultural Lands Act” of 1962, hereafter mentioned that, there is forced roof on farming grounds. Then after this roof was reviewed again and again and depending on that some more changes were made. Legality of this act was questioned in front of “Bombay High Court” and that was on the basis that these acts act as a removal of human Sbasic rights. Articles of these acts like 31A and also 31B was also taken as for questioning because of the thoughts that violate our basic structure of our India’s constitution. And all these challenges presented in high court got declined. Then there was one presented in our honorable court about the case named “Dattatraya Govind Vs State of Maharashtra (1977 2 SCR 790)”. And their also all these challenges were declined. Final judgement by court fot his case was given while emergency. Emergency was cancelled so these appeals was filed as a review to this Dattatraya one. This all means that this waman rao case was mainly based on review of this earlier case.

      LEGAL ISSUES RAISED IN THE CASE

1. Constitutional validity of Article 31A and 31B was challenged?

2. Constitutional validity of Unamended Article 31C was also challenged?

                             ANALYSIS OF THE CASE

In waman rao case it was suggested that the “basic structure doctrine” for 31-B was cross checked. Our court made a distinction when Kesavananda Bharati’s judgement was declared and it was said by the court that this doctrine shouldn’t be applied to recheck the legality of any changes made in the constitution be before this kesavananda bharati’s case. From this statement it can be inferred that all the changes that were made in 9th schedule before this kesavananda judgement will be called legitimate. And those changes that were made after this judgement were called for challenge because it is damaging our basic structure. This case is considered as landmark for our jurisprudence that is based on constitution of Bharat. This case has used the judgement of the prior case to deal with the violation of basic rights. Our court said that these laws are valid constitutionally. Ans also said that our parliament was aiming to decrease the financial gap and discrimination in India so that our country can develop. And also cleared about the doctrine that it is for article not for articles themselves and also said that acta that were made before this judgment is not questioned because they are legitimate if they pass the doctrine. Court also said that the tenure which have been increased for lower house but that is not enough and it is mentioned clearly under the 352-article clause 3. Because of increment of lower house tenure declared it legitimate, these amendments can not be seen as legitimate.  

                       CONCLUSION

 

The orders by the honorable court of this Waman Rao case was known as landmark cases on which court now also look upon. This judgement made a distinction between both the acts which was covered in 9th schedule and was declared before and after the kesvananda case which is now called as ‘Doctrine of Prospective Overruling’ and court said about the laws legality that were made before kesavanada case can’t be questioned because of the violation of basic rights. After this laws can be called for challenged. Court favored the legality of 31 A, 31 B that were made in 1951 amendment and also Article 31C which was made later in 25th amendment.