Skip to content

Waman Rao & Ors. etc. etc. versus Union of India and Ors.

(1981) 2 SCC 362cited in 86 judgementsfollowed or applied in 31

Read the judgement · Every citing judgement, by treatment

How later courts have used it

AI overview
  • Waman Rao holds that Ninth Schedule insertions before April 24, 1973 are immune from Part III challenge, but later insertions are open to basic-structure attack.1,2
  • Stare decisis is not an inexorable rule in constitutional interpretation; prospective overruling is not judicial legislation.3
  • Courts have relied on Waman Rao to hold that regulations on scarce public resources, like airwaves, attract Article 31C protection against Articles 14 and 19 challenges.4,5
  • Coordinate benches must follow an earlier reasoned decision of equal strength; divergence requires referral to a larger bench, not per incuriam or sub silentio exceptions.6,7
  • A writ court cannot rewrite executive policy; negative equality under Article 14 cannot perpetuate illegality.8,9
  • Judicial interference with expert answer keys is limited to demonstrably wrong answers; in doubt, benefit goes to the examination authority.7,10
Read the full overview· 3 paragraphs

The judgements here treat the authority (Waman Rao) primarily as a constitutional-law benchmark for the validity of constitutional amendments, with later courts citing it to support the basic-structure doctrine and the stare decisis principle. The authority's own headnote holds that the First and Fourth Amendments (Articles 31A and 31B) are valid, that all Ninth Schedule insertions before April 24, 1973 are immune from Part III challenge, and that later insertions remain open to basic-structure attack unless saved by Article 31A or unamended Article 31C.2,6,1

Later courts have distinguished Waman Rao in several contexts. In a 1997 decision, the Supreme Court distinguished it to uphold the constitutionality of the Mandal postponement decision, reasoning that prospective overruling is not judicial legislation and that stare decisis is not inexorable in constitutional interpretation. In 2022, it was distinguished in a pension-scheme case where the Court upheld a salary-based classification under Article 14, noting it had directed the State on scheme operation, a matter Waman Rao did not control. In 1993, the authority was distinguished to uphold the abolition of privy purses, as the guarantees there were political and not part of the basic structure. Conversely, some courts have relied on or applied it: in 2012, a Supreme Court decision relied on it regarding State ownership of mines and minerals, holding that ownership survives statutory declarations and that promissory estoppel cannot compel contrary action. Delhi High Court decisions from 2026, dealing with TRAI's advertisement cap on television, applied its Article 31C rationale to shield regulations from Articles 14 and 19 challenges, treating airwaves as scarce public resources.3,1,2,4,11,12

The most recent citations reflect a different use. Several 2024-2025 decisions from Jharkhand and Rajasthan High Courts cite Waman Rao to state the stare decisis principle, holding that coordinate benches must follow earlier decisions of equal strength or refer to a larger bench, and that a reasoned judgment cannot be ignored merely because material was absent earlier. In those cases, the courts set aside writ orders that had interfered with policy decisions or answer keys, finding that judicial review had been transgressed and that negative equality could not perpetuate illegality. Where courts have applied Waman Rao, they emphasize its core holding on the basic structure and Article 31B, not its specific facts.6,7,10,13,8,9,4,5

This sample mixes a constitutional authority with later applications; the 2026 Delhi HC batch and 2024-25 Rajasthan/Jharkhand cases are mostly High Court orders, not final Supreme Court pronouncements. Machine-written from the headnotes of the judgements on this page; numbers link to the source judgements. Not legal advice — read the judgements before relying on them.

Citing judgements

All 86, by treatment

The most-cited judgements that cite it, with how each treated it.

  1. The Employees Provident Fund Organisation & Anr. etc. versus Sunil Kumar B. & Ors. etc.

    Supreme Court4 Nov 20222021 INSC 422Uday Umesh Lalit

    Constitutionality of the Employees’ Pension (Amendment) Scheme, 2014 (G.S.R. 609(E) dated 22.08.2014) — higher pension on salary above the Rs.15,000 ceiling; joint option under paragraph 11(4) of the 1995 Scheme with a four-month extended window under Article 142;

    AllowedDistinguished
    Open

  2. Ashok Kumar Gupta and Anr. versus State of U.P. and Ors.

    Supreme Court21 Mar 19971997 INSC 308K. Ramaswamy

    Challenge to promotions made in the U.P. Public Works Department under reservation-in-promotion rules after the Mandal judgment. The Supreme Court upheld the prospective operation of the Mandal directions as law under Articles 141-142, held right to promotion is statutory but Article 16(4-A) guarantees Dalits/Tribes a…

    DismissedDistinguished
    Open

  3. Raghunathrao Ganpatrao etc. etc. versus Union of India

    Supreme Court4 Feb 19931993 INSC 38L.m. Sharma

    Former Rulers challenged the Constitution (Twenty-Sixth Amendment) Act, 1971 abolishing privy purses and de-recognising Rulers as violative of the basic structure and fundamental rights. A five-Judge Bench upheld the validity of the Twenty-Sixth Amendment in its entirety and dismissed the writ petitions.

    DismissedDistinguished
    Open

  4. Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd. versus Union of India and Ors.

    Supreme Court26 Jul 20122012 INSC 305Rajendra Mal Lodha

    Steel companies sought iron ore mining leases in Ghatkuri, Jharkhand after MOUs with the State Government. The Court upheld the 1962, 1969 and 2006 reservation notifications, holding that the State's ownership of minerals within its territory gave it inherent power to reserve areas for public sector exploitation…

    DismissedRelied on
    Open

  5. Pioneer Channel Factory Pvt. Ltd. Vs Telecom Regulatory Authority of India

    Delhi HC29 May 2026W.P.(C)/7988/2013Amit Mahajan Anil Kshetarpal

    The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of TRAI's Regulation 3, which caps advertisements at 12 minutes per clock hour. The Court ruled that spectrum is a public resource held in trust by the State, and TRAI's regulation qualifies as fair and reasonable under Article 31-C.

    Writ Petition (Civil)Applied
    Open

  6. B4U Broadband (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs Telecom Regulatory Authority of India

    Delhi HC29 May 2026W.P.(C)/7983/2013Amit Mahajan Anil Kshetarpal

    Batch of 17 writ petitions by TV broadcasters (GECs, news, regional) vs TRAI/UOI challenging the 12-minutes-per-clock-hour advertisement cap in Rule 7(11) Cable Television Network Rules 1994 and Regulation 3 of TRAI QoS (Duration of Advertisements) Regulations 2012 as amended 2013.

    Writ Petition (Civil)Relied on
    Open
Show 6 more

  1. Mediawatch - India ( a Registered Society) Vs Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Tria)

    Delhi HC29 May 2026W.P.(C)/2944/2014Anil Kshetarpal Amit Mahajan

    advertisement duration cap 12 minutes per clock hour; Rule 7(11) Cable Television Networks Rules 1994; TRAI QoS (Duration of Advertisements) Regulations 2012 and 2013 amendment; statutory competence of TRAI Sections 11(1)(b)(v) and 36 TRAI Act 1997; commercial speech Article 19(1)(a); Article 19(1)(g) business right;

    Writ Petition (Civil)Relied on
    Open

  2. Raj Television Private Limited Vs Telecom Regulatory Authority of India & Anr.

    Delhi HC29 May 2026W.P.(C)/739/2014Anil Kshetarpal Amit Mahajan

    Advertisement duration cap; 12 minutes per clock hour; 10+2 minutes ceiling; TRAI; Standards of Quality of Service (Duration of Advertisements in Television Channels) Regulations 2012 and 2013 Amendment Regulations; Rule 7(11) Cable Television Networks Rules 1994; R. 452(E) dated 31.07.2006;

    Writ Petition (Civil)Relied on
    Open

  3. Secretary, Rajasthan Service Selection Board Vs Amba Lal Khatik Son of Shri Babu Lal Khatik

    Rajasthan HC13 Oct 2025SAW/222/2024Sanjeev Prakash Sharma Sanjeet Purohit

    This Division Bench disposed of appeals challenging the Single Judge's order in a Rajasthan V.D.O. recruitment case and another regarding judicial discipline. The Court held that re-evaluation is impermissible without a rule provision and upheld the Expert Committee's answer key based on authenticated sources.

    AllowedApplied
    Open

  4. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary Deptt of School Education and Literacy Vs Muneshwar Mahato

    Jharkhand HC19 Jan 2024LPA/901/2019Acting Shree Chandrashekhar Anubha Rawat Choudhary

    The High Court in Letters Patent Appeals set aside a writ Court order that directed the State of Jharkhand to modify its policy for regularizing untrained teachers.

    AllowedRelied on
    Open

  5. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary School Education and Literacy Department Vs Abdul Gaffar

    Jharkhand HC19 Jan 2024LPA/862/2019Acting Shree Chandrashekhar Anubha Rawat Choudhary

    The Apex Court allowed Letters Patent Appeals filed by the State of Jharkhand challenging a writ court order. The High Court set aside the writ court’s direction modifying the State’s policy on teacher regularization and dismissed similar appeals, affirming the State’s right to set qualification criteria.

    AllowedRelied on
    Open

  6. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary Deptt of School Education and Literacy Vs Yugal Kishore Mishra

    Jharkhand HC19 Jan 2024LPA/788/2019Acting Shree Chandrashekhar Anubha Rawat Choudhary

    This Letters Patent Appeal challenges a High Court order directing the State of Jharkhand to regularize untrained teachers. The bench allowed the appeal, undoing the High Court's direction.

    AllowedFollowed
    Open