(Inserting new matter in paras 13, 14, 15)

New Delhi, Oct 30 (UNI) Senior counsel F S Nariman, opening the arguments on behalf of petitioners challenging the constitutional validity of Article 31 (B), giving power to Parliament to put any law or amendment in Ninth Schedule of the Constitution to debar judicial scrutiny, told the nine judges' constitution bench of the Supreme Court, that Parliament cannot debar the judicial review lock, stock and barrel.

Mr Nariman also contended before the nine judges bench headed by the Chief Justice Y K Sabharwal that it was not be permissible for Parliament to put all laws lock, stock and barrel in the Ninth Schedule just with a view to debar the court from examining the validity of a particular law.

Other judges of the bench are Justices Ashok Bhan, Arijit Pasayat, B P Singh, S H Kapadia, C K Thakkar, T K Balasubramanyan, Altamas Kabir and D K Jain.

Mr Nariman also told the apex court that till 1973 only laws related to land reforms were put in the Ninth Schedule and nobody ever challenged those acts of Parliament in taking the agrarian laws out of the purview of the interpretation of such laws by the courts.

After 1973, Parliament also started putting other laws in the Ninth Schedule, to make them immune from judicial examination.

At one stage, the Chief Justice remarked, ''As per Article 368 of the Constitution, there is a limitation and if a law is destructive of the basic structure of the Constitution, then it cannot be placed in the Ninth Schedule.'' The court also made queries on whether the government can revive a law which has been struck down by the court as unconstitutional, by putting the same in the Ninth Schedule, that is to say 'reviving a dead body'.

Mr Nariman further submitted that a law struck down by the apex court as invalid has to be re-enacted by Parliament and only then it can be revived and such law cannot be revived by simply putting it in Ninth Schedule.

The court wanted to know from the petitioners' counsel whether mode prescribed in law has to be followed or not.

Mr Nariman remarked in lighter vein ''There is no procedure in the state to apply mind.'' He also told the court that till date there are 285 laws put in the Ninth Schedule to avoid judicial scrutiny.

He also told the bench that not only a constitutional amendment but even a declaration by the legislature of a policy matter can be taken out of the ambit of judicial scrutiny by using the Ninth Schedule and hence, the state and Parliament virtually enjoy unfettered power to avoid judicial examination or interpretation of any law they (read parliament and government) deem fit.

According to Mr Nariman Article 31 (B) of the Constitution is, therefore, violative of the basic structure of the constitution as no unfettered power can be given to the government or the legislature to act according to their free will irrespective of the fact, whether these actions were in accordance with the constitutional provisions or not.

Mr Nariman quoted from the seven-judge Constitution bench of the apex court holding that power of judicial review over legislative action vested in the High Courts under Article 226 and the Supreme Court under Article 32 is an integral and essential feature of the Constitution, constituting part of its basic structure and the jurisdiction conferred upon the High Courts under Articles 226/ 227 and upon the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution is a part of the inviolable basic structure of our Constitution.

The court also enquired from Mr Nariman whether the standard for examining an ordinary law and a Constitutional Amnedment which are sought to be put in the Ninth Schedule would be the same.

The arguments shall continue tomorrow.

UNI AKS/SC LL RP