SC reserves verdict on constitutional validity of Article 31(B)

New Delhi, Nov 3 (UNI) The Supreme Court today reserved its verdict on a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Article 31(B) giving sweeping powers to the government, Parliament and the state legislature to put any law in the ninth schedule to avoid judicial review.

A nine judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Y K Sabharwal reserved the judgement after five days of arguments.

Senior counsel Harish Salve, winding up the arguments, contended that the last word on the validity of any law or Act must come from the court. Mr Salve, appearing for some of the petitioners, challenging some laws enacted by Gujarat. He contended that after April 1973, when a 13 judge bench of the court decided that the validity of any law must be tested on the touchstone of the conceptof basic structure of the Constitution, Article 31 (B) has outlived its utility and post 1973 the state or Parliament has no power to grant blanket immunity to any law by putting the same in the ninth schedule.

When the court inquired whether it can strike down a law which was enacted in 1951, Mr Salve responded by contending that laws put in ninth schedule pre 1973 cannot be examined but laws put in the ninth schedule post 1973 do not enjoy immunity from judicial review.

Till date, 285 Acts and laws have been put in the ninth schedule to avoid examination by the court.

Earlier, senior counsel F S Nariman contended that the time had come to declare that Article 31(B) was dead.

The court, who had earlier refused to hear State of Tamil Nadu today permitted the Advocate General of the state to file written submissions.

The court also directed all the parties whose counsel have addressed a court to file their brief written prepositions within ten days.

Other judges on the bench were Mr Justice Ashok Bhan, Mr Justice Arijit Pasayat, Mr Justice B P Singh, Mr Justice S H Kapadia, Mr justice C K Thakker, Mr Justice P K Balasubramanyan, Mr Justice Altamas Kabir and Mr Justice D K Jain.

Justice Arijit Pasayat took exception to the absence of the Attorney General (AG) of India, Milon K Banerji throughout the hearing of the case. When the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Gopal Subramanium started arguing on behalf of the AG, Justice Pasayat told him, ''we have issued notices to AG and wanted him to be present and not ASG on his behalf. AG should have the courtesy to be present before nine judge bench atleast for five minutes especially when a matter of such importance was on for five days.

''There is no concept of Attorney holder for AG. You are simply a counsel and your submission will not be treated as that of AG. We have reservation about such practice,'' he added.

MORE UNI AKS/SC MS HS1841