Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981) – Basic Structure & the Ninth Schedule

Our Constitution is not a fixed stone. It is a living document. It grows with society through constitutional amendments.

Parliament gets its amendment power from Article 368. Under this Article, Parliament can add, change, or remove provisions of the Constitution, but only by following a strict procedure.

The problem is: if Parliament is very powerful, who will stop it from changing everything? Here the Basic Structure Doctrine acts as a safety lock. The Supreme Court says: Parliament can amend many things, but it cannot destroy the basic structure of the Constitution.

In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Court clearly said that amendments cannot damage the basic structure. Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981) comes as a follow-up to this rule. It asks:

• What happens to laws placed in the Ninth Schedule?
• Are Articles 31A, 31B, 31C valid?
• Can Parliament hide any law from judicial review?

In simple terms, Waman Rao draws a clear line: amendments and Ninth Schedule laws made before 24 April 1973 are treated as safe; those made after that date can be checked against the basic structure.

Prefer to learn with audio-visual explanation? Watch this short class-style video breakdown of Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981). You can pause, rewind, and take notes as you go.

The Supreme Court had to answer several important questions:

1. Article 31A(1)(a): Did Parliament cross its limit when it added this clause to protect land reform laws?
2. Articles 31A and 31B: Can these Articles protect laws that clearly violate fundamental rights?
3. Ninth Schedule: Is the idea of putting laws in a special schedule, so that they cannot be challenged, itself against the basic structure?
4. 40th Constitutional Amendment: Was the extension of the Lok Sabha’s term during Emergency valid or an abuse of power?
5. Doctrine of Stare Decisis: How far should earlier decisions bind the Court when it is reviewing constitutional amendments?

In short, the Court had to balance social justice and land reform against the need to protect the basic structure and fundamental rights.

• Article 368: Gives Parliament the power to amend the Constitution, subject to the procedure and basic structure limits.
• Article 31A: Protects laws related to agrarian reforms (like abolition of zamindari) from certain fundamental rights challenges.
• Article 31B & Ninth Schedule: Laws placed in the Ninth Schedule are given special protection from being struck down for violating fundamental rights.
• Article 31C: Shields laws that give effect to Directive Principles in Article 39(b) and (c) from violation claims under Articles 14, 19 and 31.
• Basic Structure Doctrine: Parliament can amend the Constitution, but cannot damage its basic features like rule of law, separation of powers, and judicial review.
• Doctrine of Prospective Overruling: A new legal rule applies to future situations and not to past events that are already settled.

The story of Waman Rao is closely linked to land reforms and the Ninth Schedule.

The heart of the decision in Waman Rao can be captured in three key points:

1. Basic Structure limits all amendments: Even when Parliament uses Articles 31A, 31B, 31C, or the Ninth Schedule, it cannot pass laws that destroy the basic structure of the Constitution.
2. Prospective line from 24 April 1973: The Court fixed 24 April 1973 (date of Kesavananda Bharati) as a dividing line. Ninth Schedule laws before this date are presumed valid; laws added after this date can be reviewed under the basic structure doctrine.
3. Land reform is constitutionally supported: Land ceiling and agrarian reforms generally support equality and social justice, so they usually do not violate the basic structure; they may in fact strengthen it.

In simple language, Parliament’s power is strong but not unlimited, and the Ninth Schedule is powerful but not a complete shield.

Waman Rao is important because it creates a balance:

• It allows the State to continue land reforms and welfare laws without constant fear of being struck down.
• At the same time, it protects the Constitution from being manipulated through the Ninth Schedule to block judicial review forever.
• It shows how the Court uses prospective overruling to keep legal stability while still correcting the course for the future.
• It paved the way for later decisions like I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, which went even further in protecting the basic structure.

Think of this case as a constitutional handshake between Parliament and the Supreme Court: both agree that social justice is essential, but the basic framework of the Constitution cannot be broken.

• Pre-Kesavananda amendments and Ninth Schedule entries (before 24 April 1973) are treated as safe from basic structure review.
• Post-Kesavananda amendments and Ninth Schedule entries can be tested and struck down if they violate the basic structure.
• Articles 31A, 31B, 31C were upheld because they support land reforms and social justice, which are in harmony with the Constitution’s goals.
• Parliament’s amendment power is strong but not absolute; it always remains under the watch of the basic structure doctrine.
• Judicial review is a permanent safety valve, even for Ninth Schedule laws added after 24 April 1973.

If you remember only one line, remember this: “1973 के पहले safe zone, 1973 के बाद scrutiny zone.”

Mnemonic: “WAMAN = When Amendments Meet A Number”

• When → W → Waman Rao
• Amendments → Parliament’s power under Article 368
• Meet → Conflict with Basic Structure
• A Number → The key date 24 April 1973

3-Step Hook for Exams:

1. Step 1 – Living Constitution: Start your answer by saying the Constitution is a living document and amendments are its tool of growth.
2. Step 2 – Basic Structure Lock: Explain that Kesavananda created the basic structure lock on Article 368.
3. Step 3 – Waman’s Line: Show how Waman Rao draws a line at 24 April 1973 and divides Ninth Schedule laws into safe zone and scrutiny zone.

Use this IRAC structure to quickly write an exam answer.

I – Issue:

Whether Parliament can use Articles 31A, 31B, 31C and the Ninth Schedule to protect laws, including land reforms, from fundamental rights challenges even if they affect the basic structure of the Constitution.

R – Rule:

Article 368 gives Parliament power to amend the Constitution. However, Kesavananda Bharati holds that no amendment can destroy the basic structure. Articles 31A, 31B, 31C and the Ninth Schedule grant special protection to certain laws, especially those related to land reforms and Directive Principles.

A – Application:

The Court examined the Maharashtra land ceiling law and other Ninth Schedule entries. It agreed that land reforms promote equality and social justice, which support basic structure. At the same time, it refused to allow Parliament to use the Ninth Schedule as an all-purpose shield. So, it applied prospective overruling and fixed 24 April 1973 as a cut-off date.

C – Conclusion:

The Court upheld Articles 31A, 31B, 31C and the Maharashtra land ceiling law, but held that post-1973 Ninth Schedule laws can be tested on basic structure grounds. Parliament’s power is thus limited by the basic structure and judicial review remains available.

Some quick terms you should be comfortable with:

Basic Structure Doctrine

A judge-made rule that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution in a way that destroys its core features like democracy, rule of law and judicial review.

Ninth Schedule

A list of laws placed in a special part of the Constitution to give them extra protection from being struck down for violating fundamental rights.

Prospective Overruling

A technique where the Court applies a new rule only to future situations and does not unsettle past actions based on the old rule.

Directive Principles (Art. 39(b) & (c))

Principles that ask the State to distribute material resources fairly and to prevent concentration of wealth, supporting a welfare and egalitarian order.

Stare Decisis

A principle that courts should generally follow their earlier decisions to keep the law stable and predictable, unless strong reasons justify a change.

To fully understand Waman Rao, also revise these cases:

• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) – Birth of the Basic Structure Doctrine.
• I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) – Ninth Schedule laws fully brought under basic structure review.
• Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967) – Earlier view that fundamental rights could not be amended, later modified by Kesavananda.