Art. 31 – A, B, C.

Introduction :
The Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, signifies the demise of the
fundamental Right to Property. Before 1978, there were mainly two articles to protect private
property, Arts. 19(1) (f) and 31, but they were repealed by constitutional amendments.
Though A. 31A, 31B and 31C are included in the chapter of fundamental rights they cannot be
called as fundamental rights in the real sense, as they do not confer fundamental right but
impose certain restriction on right to property. The main object of these provisions was to
provide immunity to various laws curtailing property rights.

Need for article 31.A

After independence, the government of India started to implement agrarian reforms with the
aim of reforming land ownership and tenancy structure and to implement the socialistic goals
of the Constitution contained in Art. 39 (b) and (c) of the DPSP which required equitable
distribution of resources of production amongst all citizens and prevention of concentration of
wealth in the hands of few.
When the states passed the zamindari abolition acts, property owners approached the courts
because these acts were volatile of their FR to property. When The Supreme court reviewed
these laws ,it followed the constitution religiously and upheld the FR to property of the
zamindars and struck down the zamindari abolition laws. Thus , Parliament needed to secure
the constitutional validity of these laws.This led to the first amendment of the constitution in
1951.

1st Amendment 1951.

Via this amendment Art. 31A, B and the ninth schedule was inserted in the Constitution to
immunize the law to prevent if from the scope of judicial review. By doing so the government
placed 13 laws passed by the states into the 9th schedule. And then put 31B which stated that
any law placed in the 9th schedule shall not be deemed to be void only on the grounds that it
takes away some FR.

4th Amendment 1955.

By this amendment the scope of the word ‘ ESTATE ‘ was extended to include within it Jagir,
Inam, Muafi, Janman Rights.

During this stage the working of zamindars abolition was carried out smoothly but e main
difficulty before the government was of paying compensation. In A. 31(2) the word
compensation was used without any adjective like just or reasonable.

17th Amendment 1964

Provided for compensation not less then market value .
This was done to confer some protection to the small cultivators who possessed land for self
cultivation , before this amendment there was no compensation
Vajaralu v Special Deputy Collector 1965
➢ The Land acquisition ( Madras Amendment) Act 1961 act challenged
➢ Act was not for agrarian reforms
➢ Act passed of clearing slums for housing scheme
➢ The SC held that the act is not protected u/art. 31 A and hence is invalid.
Godavari Sugar mills v. S. B. Kambale 1975.
➢ State acquired surplus land from zamindar’s and instead of giving it to poor landless
people, the land was given to Farming corporations.
➢ It was argued that the purpose of the acquisition was not agrarian and thus the
acquisition be held invalid.
➢ The Supreme court rejected the argument and stated that state farming corporations
were sought to improve collective interest by removing economic imbalances.

In K.K. Kochuni v State of Madras , it was held that the protection of Art. 31 A is not
applicable to a law which seeks to modify the rights of the owner without any reference to
agrarian reforms.

Constitutionality of A. 31A
Minerva Mills v Union of India , the Court held that the whole of Art. 31A is unassailable on
the basis of stare decisis, a quietus that should not allowed to be disturbed.
In Waman Rao and I R Coelho case, the First Amendment in which the Art. 31A was
introduced and Fourth Amendment which substituted new clauses to this Article has been held
constitutional. Therefore relying on the judgments of Minerva Mills, Waman Rao and
Coelho case Article 31A can be stated as constitutionally valid.

Emergence of Article 31 B: Validation of certain Laws

➢ Art.31B was added to the Constitution by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act,
1951.
➢ Acts and Regulations mentioned in the 9th scheduled would not become void
➢ 9th schedule kept out of the preview of judicial reviews
➢ The object was to place DPSP above the FR's
➢ Retrospective in nature
➢ 31- B had wider scope then 31 – A

Kameshwar Singh v. St. Of Bihar 1951

 ➢ No act in 9th scheduled can be invalidated on the ground of non- conformity with any
FR.
➢ Later Amendments made to the act are not immuned form Judicial review.
➢ Protection u/art. 31 – B not available to amendment. Because to include any act in the
9th schedule special majority in both the houses is required , but to amend the act already
in the 9th schedule, ordinary legislative process of law is required.

A question was raised in Prag Ice And Oil Mills v. Union Of India whether article 31B saved
the orders and notifications issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act 1955
which was already included in the Ninth schedule, Supreme court held that like the
amendments to an act subsequent to an inclusion of an act in the Ninth schedule were not
entitled to the protection of Article 31B similarly orders and notifications are no exceptions.

L. Chandra Kumar v. UOI . 1997.

 ➢ SC asserted that the power of Judicial Review is an integral and essential feature if the
Constitution, it cannot be excluded or ousted.

Emergence of Article 31 C
➢ This article was inserted by the 25th Constitutional Amendment to get over the
difficulties placed by judicial decisions in the way of giving effect to the Directive
Principles in Part IV.
➢ It provided immunity from any challenge on the grounds of violation of Article 14, 19
and 31 any law enacted for implementing the directives in clause (b) and (c) of Article
39.
➢ In the 25th amendment it was further provided that such law made to give effect to the
policy under Article 39(b) and (c), would not be open to judicial review. However, this
second part was struck down in Keshavananda Bharti v State of Kerala , but rest of
the Article was held valid.

42nd Amendment 1976

Scope of 31 – C widened to all DPSP’s.
Constitutional validity was challenged in kesavanand Bharathu v. State of Kerala 1973
➢ First part held valid
➢ Second part was struck down as held unconstitutional because judicial review is the
basic feature of the Constitution
➢ There has to be a Direct and real nexus between the law and effect to Art.39 (b) and (c).
➢ If no nexus found that act will be held invalid and unconstitutional
Minerva mills v. UOI 1980
➢ The harmony and balance between FR and DPSP’s is an essential feature of the basic
structure of the Constitution.
➢ SC struck down the extension because it was beyond the powers of Parliament and
giving primacy to all the DPSP’S over FR would violate the basic features of the
constitution and judicial review.
➢ SC restricted the scope of Art31-C back to Art.39(b) and(c) only.
Waman Rao v UOI 1981
➢ Judgement by J. Chandrachud and J. Bhagwati
➢ SC reiterated the judgement of Minerva Mills case.
➢ Any act added on the 9th schedule on/ after 24th April 1973 if found to be volatile of
basic features of the Constitution shall be declared unconstitutional.
➢ All acts b4 1973 in the 9th schedule will be immuned form judicial review.
Sanjeev coke...
➢ Coking coal mines ( Nationalization) act 1972 challenged
➢ As petitioners mines were being nationalized
➢ Petitioner contended that it is violation of Ara.14 and there was no need for
Nationalization after so many years ( read years carefully)
➢ Court rejected the contentions and held that the Act was valid notwithstanding Art.14
 ➢ Court further held that partial and selective Nationalization was permissible.
➢ Extent of Nationalization was a legislative matter beyond judicial review.

State of Maharashtra v. Basantibai 1986

➢ Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act 1977 was challenged.
➢ Act provided for acquisition of land for public purpose.
➢ No Declaration expressly given.
Bombay high court found no remote connection with Art.39(b). Ruled that the provisions of
acquisition were merely incidental to the object of the act thus no protection u/art.31-C to the
said act .the connection wasn’t substantial and real.
SUPREME COURT: reversed the judgment of HC by holding that the acquisition of pvt.land
amounts to distribution of material sources thus it gives effect to art.39(b).SC held the
provisions of basic amenities necessary for civil life is kind of distribution of material sources
SC held that pith and Substance ( nature and character) of the Act is to be looked into
.Therefore Express legislative declarations isint8a condition precedent for availing protection
under art.31-C.

Conclusion.
The constitution was amended in the year 1951 for the first time. This amendment led to several
modifications in the fundamental rights and started the era of land reform through constitutional
mechanism. It has introduced .two new articles namely 31A and 31B and the infamous ninth
schedule so as to make the laws acquiring zamindars unchallengeable in the Court of law. This
was because of the land reform legislations were being challenged before various high courts
like on the ground of inconsistency with the fundamental rights specially Article 14..But the
High Court varied in their opinions. These kinds of litigations were causing delay in the process
of agrarian reforms which was supposed to be speedy. Therefore it was thought to bypass these
wasteful litigations in order to give true effect to the land reform process. In this project the
main focus was the constitutional validity of Articles 31A, 31B and 31C. It was strongly argued
against the protective nature of these articles which exclude all possibilities of challenge to the
laws included under the shield. It was argued in litigations that such shield will violate certain
fundamental rights enshrined under part IIII of the constitution
The validity of the article 31A was challenged stating that it fetters the fundamental rights and
is therefore contrary to the basic structure of the constitution. But the Court rejected this by
saying that every case where the protection of the fundamental right is withdrawn can’t be
something that is damaging the basic structure. the Court referred to the historical view of the
Constitution 1st Amendment Act and said that the 1st amendment was aimed in removing the
social and economic disparities in the agricultural sector. But while removing wide disparities
it is impossible for any government to remove all the disparities without causing certain
hardship to a classes of people who are also entitled to equal treatment under the law. It is thus
concluded that the 1st amendment of the constitution does not violate any basic structure of the
constitution.

The basic structure of the constitution as a mandate can be achieved only through the
permissible means of the objectives set out in part III of the constitution and these reservations
cannot be in contravention to the mandates of the directive principles of state policy. In other
words, the mandatory ends set out in Part IV can be achieved only through those means which
are consistent with the fundamental rights conferred by Part III. The discussion in the project
focussed on the constitutional validity of the Article 31C as amended by the 42nd Amendment
does not, in fact cannot be allowed to stand as if it is allowed then it will confer an unrestricted
licence on the legislature and the executive, both at the Centre and in the States, to destroy
democracy and establish a totally authoritarian regime in the democratic and socialist pattern
of the Indian fabric. It’s a known fact that all legislative action and every of the governmental
action has to be related directly or indirectly, to some directive principle of State policy in order
to fulfil its purpose under the constitution. The final words of the author in concluding the
above discussion would be that if Article 31C was allowed to stand on its own over the grave
of the democratic and socialist fabric then the protection of this amended article will be
available to every legislative action under the sun, resulting into a society that we cannot
imagine, this is because article 31C abrogates the right to equality guaranteed by Article 14,
which is the very foundation of a republican form of government and is by itself a basic feature
of the Constitution. So it is concluded that if article 31C is allowed to stand then that would
result into the complete failure of the basic spirit of the constitution makers and therefore in
violation to the basic structure of the constitution of India.