Editor,
Apropos your editorial, “Whither the Sixth Schedule,” (ST Dec 13, 2016), it is surprising that none of the political parties have reacted to the Supreme Court ruling of November 27, which allows banks to sell off tribal land mortgaged to them, to non-tribals in order to recover their dues. The Supreme Court had argued that Article 31-B of the Constitution would not confer immunity to a legislation from being overridden by the provisions of a Parliamentary statute. Article 31-B of the Constitution of India ensures that any law in the Ninth Schedule cannot be challenged in courts and Government can rationalize its programme of social engineering by reforming land and agrarian laws. According to Vijay Pal Singh, laws under Ninth Schedule are beyond the purview of judicial review even though they violate fundamental rights enshrined under Part III of the Constitution. While considerable power was given to legislature under Article 31-B, the power of the judiciary was curtailed. This is the starting point of tussle between the legislature and judiciary. The rationale for Article 31-B and the Ninth Schedule was to protect legislation dealing with property rights and not any other type of legislation. But, in practice, Article 31-B has been used to invoke protection for many laws not concerned with property rights in any way. Article 31-B is thus being used beyond the socio-economic purpose for which it was enacted.
Though an Act is inserted in the Ninth Schedule by a Constitutional Amendment, its provision would be open to attack on the ground that they destroy or damage the basic structure if the fundamental right or rights is/are taken away or abrogated. The Supreme Court in earlier cases had stated that if the validity of any Ninth Schedule law has already been upheld by this Court, it would not be open to challenge again on the principles declared by a prior judgment. However, if a law held to be violative of any rights in Part III of the Constitution is subsequently incorporated in the Ninth Schedule after 24th April 1973, such a violation / infraction shall be open to challenge on the grounds that it destroys the basic structure of the Constitution as indicated in Article 21, Article 14, Article 19, and the principles underlying there under.
After the landmark judgment of Supreme Court in I R Coelho delivered on January 11 2007 it is now a well settled principle that laws placed under Ninth Schedule after April 23 1973 are subject to judicial scrutiny if they violated certain fundamental rights and thus put the check on the misuse of the provision of the Ninth Schedule by the legislature.
Yours etc.,
RL Lyngdoh,
Law Student,
New Delhi
Dangerous ruling!
Editor,
As pointed out in your editorial the ramification of the apex court ruling delivered on November 27 is very grave indeed. If all the tribal lands mortgaged to banks are allowed to be sold away to non-tribals to realise the loans taken, then large chunks of tribal land would be alienated in favour of non-tribals and very little land will be left with the tribals. The reason is because large tracks of tribal lands are mortgaged to various banks by tribals in the North East to avail loans for various purposes. Many of them have not been able to clear the loans so far which may force the banks to sell off the lands to non-tribals. This will lead to dispossession of the tribal land. This is dangerous. At the most, the apex court should have allowed the mortgaged tribal lands to be sold to other tribals or those of the same community as the borrower. In Meghalaya, for example, the ruling of the apex court should also keep in mind the land laws of the state. So also in the case of Tripura the apex court should have examined the land laws of Tripura before the judgment.
Yours etc.,
Philip Marweiñ,
Shillong-2.
Waste of public money
Editor,
The December 12, issue of your paper carried four advertisements on Page 3 issued by North East Police Academy. The advertisements were identical except for the vehicle models and the dates. My question is, why could not these advertisements have been placed together to save public money?
Yours etc.,
Dr T Kakoty
Shillong 14