KUNJUKUTTY SAHIB Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are 43 appeals (C. As. Nos. 143, 274, 309 and 203 to 242 of 1971), 40 appeals (C. As. Nos. 203 to 242 of 1971) being by the State of Kerala and the Land Board and the remaining three by some of the writ petitioners in the High Court. Most of the material provisions of the amended Kerala Land Reforms Act, Act No. 1 of 1964 (hereinafter called the impugned Act) were challenged in the High Court as violative of Arts. 14, 19, 25, 26 and 31 of the Constitution. Quite a number of Writ petitions, however, assailed the entire impugned Act on that score. The sole defence in sustaining the constitutional validity of the impugned Act was based on Article 31-A of the Constitution. The High Court struck down several provisions of the impugned Act. In the State appeals (C. As. Nos. 203 to 242 of 1971) the judgment of the High Court is questioned only in so far as it struck down Section 73 and explanation to Section 85 (1) of the impugned Act. The Judgment appealed from is reported as V. N. Narayanan Nair v. State of Kerala, AIR 1971 Ker 98 (FB). Raman Nair, C.J., and Raghavan, J., expressed their conclusions through the Chief Justice thus:

(2.) IT may at the outset be pointed out that the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (Act No. 1 of 1964) as originally enacted was specified in the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution (ITem No. 39 in that Schedule) and is, therefore, immune from constitutional challenge founded on the ground that the provisions of the said Act are inconsistent with or take away or abridge any of the rights conferred by any provision of Part III of the Constitution; vide Art. 31-B. IT is only the subsequent amendment of the original Act which having not been specified in the Ninth Schedule is open to attack as violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution.

(3.) THE dissenting opinion, upholding its validity, observed that in construing the reasonableness of the provisions of Section 73 it is legitimate to look to the provisions of Article 39 in part IV of the Constitution which emphasises the Directive Policy of the Government so as to give purposive content to the restriction which Part III imposes upon the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.