Waman Rao v. Union of India
E545539
Waman Rao v. Union of India is a landmark 1981 Supreme Court of India judgment that reaffirmed and clarified the basic structure doctrine by upholding its applicability to constitutional amendments made after the Kesavananda Bharati decision.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Waman Rao v. Union of India canonical | 2 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T5738456 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Waman Rao v. Union of India Context triple: [basic structure doctrine, usedInCase, Waman Rao v. Union of India]
-
A.
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India is a landmark Supreme Court of India case that examined environmental, displacement, and development issues surrounding large dam construction on the Narmada River.
-
B.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala is a landmark 1973 Supreme Court of India judgment that established the basic structure doctrine, limiting Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
-
C.
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India is a landmark 2018 Supreme Court of India judgment that decriminalized consensual same-sex relations by reading down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and affirming constitutional protections for LGBTQ+ rights.
-
D.
Joseph Shine v. Union of India
Joseph Shine v. Union of India is a landmark 2018 Supreme Court of India judgment that decriminalized adultery by striking down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code as unconstitutional and discriminatory.
-
E.
Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India
Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India is a landmark 2017 Supreme Court of India judgment that unanimously affirmed the fundamental right to privacy under the Indian Constitution.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Waman Rao v. Union of India Target entity description: Waman Rao v. Union of India is a landmark 1981 Supreme Court of India judgment that reaffirmed and clarified the basic structure doctrine by upholding its applicability to constitutional amendments made after the Kesavananda Bharati decision.
-
A.
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India is a landmark Supreme Court of India case that examined environmental, displacement, and development issues surrounding large dam construction on the Narmada River.
-
B.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala is a landmark 1973 Supreme Court of India judgment that established the basic structure doctrine, limiting Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
-
C.
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India is a landmark 2018 Supreme Court of India judgment that decriminalized consensual same-sex relations by reading down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and affirming constitutional protections for LGBTQ+ rights.
-
D.
Joseph Shine v. Union of India
Joseph Shine v. Union of India is a landmark 2018 Supreme Court of India judgment that decriminalized adultery by striking down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code as unconstitutional and discriminatory.
-
E.
Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India
Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India is a landmark 2017 Supreme Court of India judgment that unanimously affirmed the fundamental right to privacy under the Indian Constitution.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (38)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
Supreme Court of India judgment
ⓘ
landmark judgment ⓘ |
| appliesTo | Parliament of India’s amending power under Article 368 ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
constitutional amendments review
ⓘ
judicial review ⓘ |
| benchType | Constitution Bench ⓘ |
| category | Indian Supreme Court constitutional law case ⓘ |
| citationStatus | leading precedent ⓘ |
| clarified |
scope of basic structure doctrine
ⓘ
temporal application of basic structure doctrine ⓘ |
| concerns |
Article 31B of the Constitution of India
ⓘ
Ninth Schedule of the Constitution of India ⓘ basic structure doctrine ⓘ constitutional amendments ⓘ |
| country | India ⓘ |
| court | Supreme Court of India ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1981 ⓘ |
| effect |
limited immunity of Ninth Schedule laws
ⓘ
prospective application of basic structure doctrine ⓘ |
| established | cut-off date of 24 April 1973 for Ninth Schedule immunity ⓘ |
| followedPrecedent | Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala ⓘ |
| heldThat |
basic structure doctrine applies to constitutional amendments made after Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
ⓘ
constitutional amendments after 24 April 1973 are subject to basic structure review ⓘ laws inserted into the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973 are open to challenge on the ground of violating the basic structure ⓘ laws placed in the Ninth Schedule before 24 April 1973 are generally immune from basic structure challenge ⓘ |
| impact |
shaped interpretation of Ninth Schedule protections
ⓘ
strengthened judicial review over constitutional amendments ⓘ |
| jurisdiction | constitutional jurisdiction ⓘ |
| languageOfJudgment | English ⓘ |
| legalSystem | Indian constitutional law ⓘ |
| reaffirmed | Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala ⓘ |
| recognized | validity of pre-Kesavananda Ninth Schedule insertions ⓘ |
| relatedToCase | Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala ⓘ |
| relatedToDoctrine | basic structure of the Constitution ⓘ |
| subjectMatter |
limits on amending power
ⓘ
relationship between Parliament and judiciary ⓘ |
| temporalCutoffDate | 24 April 1973 ⓘ |
| timeReference | post-Kesavananda constitutional amendments ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Waman Rao v. Union of India Description of subject: Waman Rao v. Union of India is a landmark 1981 Supreme Court of India judgment that reaffirmed and clarified the basic structure doctrine by upholding its applicability to constitutional amendments made after the Kesavananda Bharati decision.
Referenced by (2)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.