Waman Rao Case and Judicial Review of the Ninth Schedule

Waman Rao case refers to the 1980 Supreme Court ruling that fixed the outer boundary of the protection given to laws placed in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution, holding that this protection cannot shield legislation enacted after 24 April 1973 from being tested against the basic structure of the Constitution. The case is central to understanding how the judiciary reconciled parliamentary power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 with its own power of judicial review over such amendments.

Background: The Ninth Schedule and Article 31B

The Ninth Schedule was inserted into the Constitution along with Article 31B by the very First Amendment Act of 1951. Article 31B shields any Act or Regulation placed in the Ninth Schedule from being declared void merely because it is inconsistent with, or takes away, rights conferred under Part III (Fundamental Rights). Crucially, this protection applies even where a court has already given a contrary judgment, and it operates without prejudice to the separate protection given to land-reform laws under Article 31A.

When the Ninth Schedule was created in 1951, it listed only 13 laws, most dealing with land reforms and abolition of the zamindari system. Over the decades, successive governments used it to insulate a growing number of laws — many unconnected to land reform — from judicial scrutiny. This raised the question of whether Parliament could indefinitely expand this immunity through Article 368, or whether some outer limit existed.

Article 368: Routes of Constitutional Amendment

Article 368 empowers Parliament to amend the Constitution "by way of addition, variation or repeal" of any provision, through a Bill introduced in either House. The route depends on the subject matter:

This amending power came before a 13-judge bench in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973). The Court held that while Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, it could not use Article 368 to destroy the Constitution's "basic structure" — features such as sovereignty and integrity, the federal character of the polity, parliamentary government, and judicial review itself. This judgment, delivered on 24 April 1973, became the reference date for later Ninth Schedule cases.

The doctrine was reinforced in Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), where the Court struck down clauses inserted into Article 368 by the 42nd Amendment that tried to place constitutional amendments beyond judicial review and give Parliament unlimited amending power. A limited amending power, the Court held, is itself part of the basic structure.

The Waman Rao Judgment (1980)

Against this backdrop, the Supreme Court decided Waman Rao v. Union of India (1980). It applied the basic structure doctrine to the Ninth Schedule and fixed its temporal reach: Acts already included in the Ninth Schedule before 24 April 1973 continue to enjoy the full protection of Article 31B, but laws inserted on or after that date do not receive blanket immunity — they remain open to challenge if they damage or destroy the basic structure.

In effect, Waman Rao split Ninth Schedule laws into two categories — those inserted before the basic structure doctrine was propounded (absolutely protected) and those inserted afterward (protected only so long as they do not violate the basic structure). Article 31B could no longer function as an unconditional, permanent shield for legislation added after 1973.

I.R. Coelho Case (2007): Reaffirming Waman Rao

The Waman Rao principle was tested again in I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007), often called the Ninth Schedule case. A larger bench reaffirmed the Waman Rao position and went further in laying down tests for examining Ninth Schedule laws. It held that judicial review is itself a basic feature, so no law — however placed — can claim blanket immunity from it merely by being listed in the Ninth Schedule.

The Court held that a law abrogating Fundamental Rights, whether by amending Part III directly or by insertion into the Ninth Schedule, must be examined for its actual impact rather than its form — applying the "rights test" and the "essence of the right" test with reference to Articles 21, 14 and 19 read together. There is no blanket protection for laws inserted after 24 April 1973; each is open to constitutional adjudication on this touchstone.

Judicial Review: A Wider Constitutional Principle

Judicial review — the power of courts to examine the constitutionality of laws and executive action — did not originate in India. It was first propounded by the US Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison (1803), where Chief Justice John Marshall asserted the judiciary's authority to strike down laws inconsistent with the Constitution. In India, the Supreme Court had earlier used judicial review over constitutional amendments in Golaknath (1967), feeding into the basic structure doctrine's evolution in Kesavananda Bharati.

UPSC Relevance

Prelims

• Article 31B and the Ninth Schedule were added by the First Amendment Act, 1951.
• 24 April 1973 is the reference date used in the Waman Rao and I.R. Coelho judgments (date of the Kesavananda Bharati verdict).
• Judicial review as a basic feature traces to Kesavananda Bharati (1973) and Minerva Mills (1980); its American origin lies in Marbury v. Madison (1803).
• Article 368 lays down three distinct amendment procedures depending on the subject matter.

Mains

• Trace the evolution of the basic structure doctrine from Golaknath to Kesavananda Bharati, Minerva Mills, Waman Rao and I.R. Coelho.
• Examine how the Ninth Schedule's protective shield was progressively narrowed by judicial interpretation despite its plain constitutional wording.
• Discuss judicial review as a check on the constituent power of Parliament under Article 368.

FAQ

Q1. What did the Waman Rao case decide? It held that Ninth Schedule laws inserted before 24 April 1973 retain full protection under Article 31B, while those inserted on or after that date can be tested against the basic structure of the Constitution.

Q2. Why is 24 April 1973 significant? It is the date the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in the Kesavananda Bharati case, which propounded the basic structure doctrine; Waman Rao used this date as the cut-off for applying that doctrine to the Ninth Schedule.

Q3. How did the I.R. Coelho case relate to Waman Rao? I.R. Coelho (2007) reaffirmed the Waman Rao position and added the "rights test" and "essence of the right" test to determine whether a Ninth Schedule law damages the basic structure.

Q4. Can Parliament use the Ninth Schedule to permanently escape judicial review? No. The Supreme Court has held that judicial review is itself a basic feature of the Constitution, so no law placed in the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973 enjoys blanket immunity from it.

Q5. What is the connection between Article 368 and the basic structure doctrine? While Article 368 empowers Parliament to amend the Constitution, Kesavananda Bharati and Minerva Mills held that this power cannot be used to damage or destroy the Constitution's basic structure, including judicial review itself.

Quick Revision

• Ninth Schedule + Article 31B added by First Amendment, 1951; originally 13 laws.
• Kesavananda Bharati (1973): basic structure doctrine propounded; date of judgment — 24 April 1973.
• Waman Rao (1980): Ninth Schedule laws after 24 April 1973 not absolutely protected; must pass basic structure test.
• Minerva Mills (1980): struck down Article 368(4)-(5) inserted by 42nd Amendment; judicial review is a basic feature.
• I.R. Coelho (2007): reaffirmed Waman Rao; laid down rights test and essence of the right test.
• Marbury v. Madison (1803): origin of judicial review doctrine in the US.
• Kihoto Hollohan (1992): struck down Paragraph 7 of Tenth Schedule for lack of Article 368(2) ratification.

Sources

• Constitution of India, Article 368 — legislative.gov.in
• Constitution of India, Article 31B and Ninth Schedule — legislative.gov.in
• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) — Supreme Court of India
• I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) — Supreme Court of India

Further Reference

For deeper reading on this topic and the wider polity syllabus, these standard works are recommended:

• M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity (McGraw Hill) — the standard UPSC handbook.
• D.D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India (LexisNexis) — authoritative constitutional-law treatment.
• The Constitution of India — Bare Act — the official text.

Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate, UPSC.wiki earns from qualifying purchases — at no extra cost to you.