Quick answer
No. In Waman Rao v. Union of India (judgment of 13 November 1980), a five-judge Constitution Bench held that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule by constitutional amendments made before 24 April 1973 (the date of the Kesavananda Bharati judgment) are fully protected by Article 31B. Amendments made on or after that date which add laws to the Ninth Schedule are open to challenge on the ground that they go beyond Parliament's constituent (amending) power by damaging the basic structure. The Court also upheld Article 31A and the original (unamended) Article 31C.
The case
Waman Rao v. Union of India, (1981) 2 SCC 362, Supreme Court of India. Order on 9 May 1980; reasoned judgment on 13 November 1980. Bench: Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J., P.N. Bhagwati, V.R. Krishna Iyer, V.D. Tulzapurkar and A.P. Sen, JJ.; main judgment by Chandrachud, C.J., with a separate judgment by Bhagwati, J. Landholders challenged the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, which had been placed in the Ninth Schedule by the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964, and its amending Acts, which were added by the Constitution (Fortieth Amendment) Act, 1976. The ceiling laws were upheld and the petitions were dismissed with costs.
What the Court held
- Article 31A is valid: the First Amendment, which inserted Article 31A, and the Fourth Amendment, which substituted its clause (1), do not damage the basic structure.
- Article 31B and the cut-off date: all amendments made before 24 April 1973 that placed Acts in the Ninth Schedule are valid. Those Acts cannot be challenged for violating Part III (fundamental rights).
- Later additions are open to scrutiny: amendments made on or after 24 April 1973 are open to challenge as beyond the constituent power. Such a challenge is not needed if the Act is already saved by Article 31A or by the unamended Article 31C.
- Unamended Article 31C: valid to the extent its constitutionality was upheld in Kesavananda Bharati.
- Extended Lok Sabha: the Fortieth and Forty-second Amendments could not be struck down on the ground that they were passed by a Lok Sabha whose term had been extended.
Why 24 April 1973?
That is the date on which Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala was decided and the basic structure doctrine was first accepted. The Court said that Acts had been put in the Ninth Schedule before that decision on the belief that Parliament's amending power was wide and unlimited, and that many properties had changed hands and new titles had arisen on the faith of that protection. Reopening those laws would cause "chaos and confusion", so the Court protected the past and applied the new limit to the future. See Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973).
| Ninth Schedule law added by an amendment made | Effect after Waman Rao |
|---|---|
| Before 24 April 1973 | Fully protected by Article 31B; cannot be attacked for violating Part III |
| On or after 24 April 1973 | The amendment can be challenged for damaging the basic structure |
Example
Aadil's land was taken under a State ceiling law placed in the Ninth Schedule in 1964. After Waman Rao, he cannot attack that law for violating his fundamental rights. Neha challenges a different law inserted into the Ninth Schedule in 1976. Her challenge can be heard, and the court will ask whether the amendment that inserted it damages the basic structure.
Later development
In I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (11 January 2007), a nine-judge bench kept 24 April 1973 as the dividing line and held that laws added to the Ninth Schedule after that date do not get full protection. Their impact on fundamental rights, including the values in Articles 14, 19 and 21, can be examined under the basic structure test. Coelho added two limits: a Ninth Schedule law whose validity the Supreme Court has already upheld cannot be challenged again on these principles, and action taken and transactions finalised under the challenged Acts are not reopened.
Exam point
Waman Rao (1980): Ninth Schedule laws inserted before 24 April 1973 are safe under Article 31B; amendments inserting laws on or after that date can be tested against the basic structure. I.R. Coelho (2007) confirmed this cut-off.
