Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Honble Judges: Badar Durrez Ahmed and Veena Birbal, JJ.
Smt. Har Naraini Devi and Anr. – Appellants
Vs.
Union of India (UOI) and Ors. – Respondent
WP (C) 2887/2008
Decided On: 11.09.2009
Delhi Land Reforms Act - Challenge to Section 50(a) - [Section 50] - The court discussed the constitutional validity of Section 50(a) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, which governs the devolution of bhumidhari interest. The court considered the implications of Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution of India and the application of the Ninth Schedule immunity under Article 31B. The court concluded that Section 50(a) cannot be challenged due to its inclusion in the Ninth Schedule prior to 24.04.1973.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of Section 50(a) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, which favored male descendants in the devolution of bhumidhari interest, allegedly discriminating against female descendants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petition challenging Section 50(a) was not maintainable due to its inclusion in the Ninth Schedule prior to 24.04.1973, as per Article 31B immunity.
Issues: Constitutional validity of Section 50(a) in light of Articles 14, 15, and 21 and the applicability of Ninth Schedule immunity under Article 31B.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Section 50(a) cannot be challenged due to its inclusion in the Ninth Schedule prior to 24.04.1973, as per Article 31B immunity, despite potential gender discrimination.
Final Decision: The writ petition challenging Section 50 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act was dismissed as not maintainable, and the court suggested legislative intervention to address the inequality.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The judgment affirms that enactments included in the Ninth Schedule prior to 24.04.1973 are protected under Article 31B of the Constitution and cannot be challenged, even if they potentially discriminate on the basis of gender (!) (!) .
The case involved a challenge to Section 50(a) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, which governs the devolution of bhumidhari interest, particularly favoring male descendants and excluding female descendants from inheritance rights (!) (!) .
The petitioners argued that Section 50(a) violates fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution, asserting that it discriminates on the grounds of sex and is therefore unconstitutional (!) (!) .
The respondents contended that because the Act was placed in the Ninth Schedule before 24.04.1973, it is immune from challenge under Article 31B, and thus the petition is not maintainable (!) (!) .
The court clarified that laws included in the Ninth Schedule prior to the critical date are protected from judicial review, and such protection extends to laws enacted before 1973, provided they were included in the Ninth Schedule earlier (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that amendments or laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after 24.04.1973 are subject to challenge if they violate the basic structure of the Constitution, especially if they infringe upon fundamental rights or principles like equality and right to life (!) (!) (!) .
The decision underscored the importance of the basic structure doctrine, which limits Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution in a way that damages its essential features, including fundamental rights and judicial review (!) (!) (!) .
The court acknowledged the gender-based discrimination inherent in Section 50(a) but held that, based on the protection granted by Article 31B for laws included in the Ninth Schedule prior to 24.04.1973, the challenge to such laws is not permissible (!) .
Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition, reaffirming that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule before the specified date are immune from judicial review, and legislative remedies are recommended to address issues of inequality (!) (!) .
The judgment highlights the constitutional balance between protecting fundamental rights, respecting the sovereignty of the legislature, and the role of judicial review within the limits set by the doctrine of basic structure.
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.
1. Through this writ petition, the petitioners seek that Clause (a) of Section 50 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), be declared unconstitutional, allegedly being ultravires Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
2. The petitioners herein are the widow and daughter of Late Shri Ishwar Singh (died in 1985) s/o Late Shri Mukhtiar Singh (died on 6.6.97). Late Shri Ishwar Singh also had two sons, who are Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
3. Late Shri Mukhtiar Singh was the bhumidhar in respect of certain lands which were governed by the said Act. As per the provisions of Section 50 of the said Act, on his death, his bhumidhari interest in the said holdings devolved upon his grandsons, Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Section 50 of the said Act is reproduced hereunder:
50. General order of succession from males. - Subject to the provisions of Section 48 and 52, when a Bhumidhar or Asami being a male dies, his interest in his holding shall devolve in accordance with the order of the succession given below:
(a) Male lineal descendants in the male line of the descent:
Provided that no member of this class shall inherit if any male descendant between him and the deceased is alive:
Provided further that the son or sons of a predeceased son howsoever low shall inherit the share which would have devolved upon the deceased if he had been then alive:
.(b) Widow;
.(c) Father;
.(d) Mother, being a widow;
.(e) Step mother, being a widow;
.(f) Fathers father;
.(g) Fathers mother, being a widow;
.(h) Widow of a male lineal descendant in the male line of descent;
.(i) Brother, being the son of same father as the deceased;
.(k) Unmarried sister;
.(l) Brothers son, the brother having been a son of the same father as the deceased;
.(m) Fathers fathers son;
.(n) Brothers sons son;
.(o) Fathers fathers sons son;
.(p) Daughters son.
4. The main grievance of the petitioners is with respect to the line of succession provided in Section 50. Clause (a) thereof requires that whenever a male bhumidhar or asami dies, the interest shall first devolve upon the male lineal descendants in the male line of descent, howsoever low, thus, excluding the female descendants. Given the fact that the chances of there being no male lineal descendants at all are extremely low, the interest in all likelihood will not devolve upon the female descendants in any case. The widow of the deceased (Petitioner No. 1) is mentioned in Clause (h) and the granddaughter (Petitioner No. 2) is ignored completely. It is on the ground of discrimination on the basis of sex, that the petitioners are challenging the said provision.
5. The respondents, through their learned Counsel, have raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the present petition, on the ground that the said Act had been placed in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution of India (in Entry 61), by virtue of the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964, with effect from 20.06.1964. Article 31B of the Constitution provides that no Act that has been placed in the Ninth Schedule can be the subject matter of challenge. Article 3IB reads as under:
Article 31B. Validation of certain Acts and Regulations.- Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in Article 31A, none of the Acts and Regulations specified in the Ninth Schedule nor any of the provisions thereof shall be deemed to be void, or ever to have become void, on the ground that such Act, Regulation or provision is inconsistent with, or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by, any provisions of this Part, and notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court or tribunal to the contrary, each of the said Acts and Regulations shall, subject to the power of any competent Legislature to repeal or amend it, continue in force.
6. The learned Counsel for the respondents relied on the Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Wa
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
