2010 Supreme(SC) 841

2010 (7) Supreme 447
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. H. Kapadia, CJI., Swatanter Kumar, J.
Glanrock Estate (P) Ltd. — Petitioner(s)
versus
The State of Tamil Nadu — Respondent(s)
Civil Original/Appellate Jurisdiction
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 242 of 1988
with
Writ Petition (C) No. 408 of 2003 and Civil Appeal Nos. 1344-1345 of 1976.
Decided on : 9-9-2010

IMPORTANT PONT
Acquisition of the “estate” can be protected under Article 31A only if it was with the view to implement agrarian reform.
Exercise of power to amend Constitution is subject to two limitations, namely, the doctrine of over-arching principle and lack of legislative competence.
“Inter-generational equity” is part of Article 21.
Equality is a feature of rule of law and not vice-versa.
Ceiling Act (Act 20 of 1972) and Janmam Act (Act 24 of 1969) operate in two different spheres.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Ninth Schedule – Doctrine of Basic Structure – All amendments to the Constitution made on or after 24.4.1973 amending Ninth Schedule by inclusion of various Acts and Regulations were open to challenge on the ground that they, or anyone or more of them, are beyond the constituent power of the Parliament since they damage the basic or essential features of the Constitution or its basic structure – All such amendments to the Constitution made on or before 24.4.1973 to be valid and constitutional. (Para 3)

        (1981) 2 SCC 362 – Relied upon

        (1973) 4 SCC 225; (1989) 3 SCC 282; (1999) 7 SCC 580; (2007) 2 SCC 1 – Referred

        (b) Constitution of India – Article 19(1)(f) – Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978 – “Right to property” has ceased to be a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(f). (Para 6)

        (c) Constitution of India – Article 31A – In order to invoke Article 31A, it has to be shown that acquisition of the “estate” was with the view to implement agrarian reform – Section 3 of the Janmam Act insofar as it related to transfer of forests in Janmam estates was held violative of Article 31A and as such Section 3 to that extent was struck down. (Para 6)

        (1972) 2 SCC 133 – Relied upon

        1975 (Supp.) SCC 1 – Distinguished

        (d) Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1969 – Insertion in Ninth Schedule – Constitutionality – In a way Parliament has implemented the Supreme Court decision in Balmadies case by validating the law. (Para 7)

        (1972) 2 SCC 133 – Relied upon

        (e) Constitution of India – Article 368 – Amendment of statutes – Ordinary law can be challenged on the touchstone of the Constitution – Therefore, when an ordinary law seeks to make a classification without any rational basis and without any nexus with the object sought to be achieved, it could be challenged on the touchstone of Article 14 – Exercise of power to amend Constitution is subject to two limitations, namely, the doctrine of over-arching principle and lack of legislative competence – The test would be whether such an amendment violates any over-arching principle in the Constitution like “egalitarian equality”. (Para 8)

        (2007) 2 SCC 1 – Referred

        (f) Constitution of India – Article 21 – “Inter-generational equity” is part of Article 21 of the Constitution. (Para 8)

        Writ Petition No. 202 of 1995 – Relied upon

        (g) Constitution of India – Article 14 r/w 321B – If provisions of an Act breach the principle of equality thereby destroying the basic framework of the Constitution, these will not be protected by Article 31B – For example, Parliament cannot increase its amending power by amending Article 368 so as to confer on itself unlimited power of amendment and destroy and damage the fundamentals of the Constitution – If the constitutional amendment seeks to abrogate core values/over-arching principles like secularism, egalitarian equality, etc. warranting re-writing of the Constitution then such constitutional law would certainly violate the basic structure. (Para 8)

        (1973) 4 SCC 225 – Relied upon

        (h) Constitution of India – Article 14 r/w 21 – The expression “Rule of Law” describes a society in which Government must act in accordance with law – Equality is a feature of rule of law and not vice-versa – The expression “Rule of Law” constitutes an over-arching principle embodied in Article 21. (Para 8)

        1975 (Supp.) SCC 1; (2007) 2 SCC 1 – Relied upon

        (i) Constitution (Thirty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1974 – Validity – While applying the doctrine of basic structure for testing validity of a constitutional amendment one need not go by the content of a “right” but by the test of justifiability to see the scope and the object of the impugned Amendment – None of the facets of the doctrine of classification under Article 14 has been abrogated by the impugned Act (Para 9)

        (j) Janmam Act (Act 24 of 1969) – It is a piece of legislation for abolishing feudal tenure and is a measure of land reform in pursuance of the Directive Principles of State Policy – Hence protected by Article 31A. (Para 13)

        (1973) 2 SCC 713; 1952 SCR 889 – Relied upon

        (k) Janmam Act (Act 24 of 1969) – Section 3 r/w Article 31(2), Constitution of India – Constitutional validity – Legislative competence – Requirement of public purpose and compensation are not legislative requirements of the competence of Legislature to make laws under Entry 18, List II or Entry 42, List III, but are conditions or restrictions under Article 31(2) of the Constitution – Janmam Act was in respect of “land” and “land tenure” under Entry 18, List II of the Constitution for which the State Legislature was fully competent. (Para 13)

        (l) Ceiling Act (Act 20 of 1972) and Janmam Act (Act 24 of 1969) – The scope of the two Acts are different and they operate in two different spheres – There is no conflict or exclusivity between the two Acts. (Para 14)

       Facts of Case:

        1. Constitutional validity of the Constitution (Thirty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1974. inserting the Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1969 in the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution as Item No. 80 is under consideration in this writ petition.

       Finding of the Court:

        There is no merit in these appeals.

       Result : Appeals dismissed.