Court case(1981) 2 SCC 362

The Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, as amended in 1972 and 1975, imposed a ceiling on agricultural holdings and was placed in the Ninth Schedule by the 17th, 40th and 42nd Amendments. Landholders challenged the Act and the amendments. The Bombay High Court dismissed the petitions in Dattatraya Govind Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra and the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals in 1977 but kept the question of the validity of the amending Acts open; those questions were argued in Waman Rao, with the principal argument that Article 31B, by immunising Ninth Schedule laws, violated the basic structure recognised in Kesavananda Bharati.

Chandrachud CJ held that Article 31A, which protects agrarian reform laws, and Article 31C in its original form (protecting laws giving effect to Articles 39(b) and (c)) do not damage the basic structure. Article 31B and the Ninth Schedule are valid as originally enacted. Applying the doctrine of prospective overruling, the Court held that all Acts and Regulations included in the Ninth Schedule before 24 April 1973, the date of the Kesavananda judgment, are valid and beyond challenge on the ground of violation of fundamental rights or the basic structure, since the understanding before that date was that Parliament's amending power was unlimited and innumerable rights had been settled on that footing. Amendments made on or after that date, however, are open to challenge on the ground that they damage or destroy the basic structure. The Maharashtra Act was upheld.