Article 31C – Indian Constitution [Explanation]

This article is a compilation of Article 31C as it is. You can understand it well, that’s why its explanation is also given below, you must read it. Its explanation is also available in Hindi, for this you can use the link given below;

Appeal - Allow our notification service by clicking on the Bell icon so that you can easily get the notification of each new article. Also join our social media handles and be a part of the latest discussions;

📌 Join YouTube	📌 Join FB Group
📌 Join Telegram	📌 Like FB Page

📖 Read This Article in Hindi

📜 Article 31C

1[Saving of Certain Laws]

2[31C. Saving of laws giving effect to certain directive principles.— Notwithstanding anything contained in article 13, no law giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing 3[all or any of the principles laid down in Part IV] shall be deemed to be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with, or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by 4[article 14 or article 19;] 5[and no law containing a declaration that it is for giving effect to such policy shall be called in question in any court on the ground that it does not give effect to such policy]: Provided that where such law is made by the Legislature of a State, the provisions of this article shall not apply thereto unless such law, having been reserved for the consideration of the President, has received his assent.] —————— 1. Ins. by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, s. 3 (w.e.f. 3-1-1977). 2. Ins. by the Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act, 1971, s. 3 (w.e.f. 20-4-1972). 3. Subs. by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, s. 4, for “the principles specified in clause (b) or clause (c) of article 39” (w.e.f. 3-1-1977). Section 4 has been declared invalid by the Supreme Court in Minerva Mills Ltd. and Others Vs Union of India and Others, AIR 1980 SC 1789. 4. Subs. by the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, s. 8, for “article 14, article 19 or article 31” (w.e.f. 20-6-1979). 5. The words in italics struck down by the Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala, AIR 1973, SC 1461.

🔍 Explanation

There are three sections under ‘ Saving of Certain Laws’; (Which you can see in the chart below) In this article we are going to understand the third part of it i.e. Article 30C ;

Although there was a fourth section (31D) under it, which was related to anti-national activities, but it was abolished by the 43rd Constitutional Amendment Act 1977.

These provisions have been added by amending the constitution. That is, all these provisions have not been a part of the original constitution. The main reason for adding this was to end the zamindari system and move towards agrarian reform or land reform.

Article 31 ↗️
⚫ Article 30A – Saving of laws providing  for acquisition of estates etc. ⚫ Article 30B –  Validation of certain Acts and Regulations ⚫ Article 30C – Saving of laws giving effect to certain directive principles )

| Article 31C – Saving of laws giving effect to certain Directive Principles

Article 31C was brought by the 25th Constitutional Amendment Act 1971. Its purpose was to prevent the interference of the court on the law of Parliament made keeping in mind the Directive Principles of State Policy.

The danger of interference by the Court was because the Court considered the Fundamental Rights above the Directive Principles. And whenever the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles clash , the Court nullifies that law to uphold the Fundamental Rights.

Role

As we know, the Indian Constitution was enacted in 1950, and the very next year, the first constitutional amendment was introduced. This is important because the first general election was not even held yet.

Article 31A and Article 31B were added to the constitution by this amendment. Under Article 31A, an attempt was made to implement land reforms and from Article 31B, an attempt was made to keep away from judicial review the laws that violated the fundamental rights.

Be sure to read both articles for more details;

⚫ Article-31 (a) – Constitution of India

⚫ Article-31 (b) – Indian Constitution

—————————

Presently, it is grouped under a separate group along with Article 31C, Article 31A and 31B. Whose title is ‘Saving of Certain Laws’. This title was introduced through the Constitution (Forty-second) Amendment Act, 1976.

We have understood its basic role, now the question arises that how Article 31C came into the Constitution. So let us now understand what was the need to bring this system;

Need to add Article 31C

After the death of Lal Bahadur Shastri on 11 January 1966, Indira Gandhi becomes Prime Minister on 24 January 1966. General elections are held in 1967 and again Indira Gandhi comes to power. However, due to some internal politics or due to less number of seats, it was not that powerful.

Its address is  R. C. Cooper v. Union of India case  also dates from 1970. This was a matter related to nationalization of banks. Let us understand what it was.

R.C.Cooper v. Government of India Case 1970 : The government of Indira Gandhi at that time wanted to extend banking facilities to remote areas of the country or areas deprived of banking facilities. 

she could do it because ‘b’ and ‘c’ of Article 39  also gives the reason for doing so. Article 39 ‘b’ where – lays emphasis on equitable distribution of material resources of the community for the common good, Article 39 ‘c’ – lays emphasis on prevention of concentration of wealth and production.

In 1969 , the Indira Gandhi government brought the  Banking Companies (Acquisition and transfer of undertaking) Ordinance  . Under which the government nationalized 14 banks.

These 14 banks were selected on the basis of deposits, that is, only those banks whose deposits were more than 50 crores at that time were selected.

Out of these 14 banks, RC Cooper was the shareholder of 2 banks (Bank of Baroda and Central Bank of India).

⚫ The main problem of RC Cooper was with the compensation system. In fact, there was a provision in the ordinance brought by the government that after the acquisition of the banks, the compensation that the shareholder would get would be based on mutual agreement.

If this agreement fails, then these matters will be handed over to the tribunal and then the amount decided there will be given to the shareholder after 10 years.

⚫ While the provision of compensation in such cases under Article 31 (2) was that whenever the government acquires someone’s property, the owner or shareholder of that property will be compensated by the government as per the market rate at that time. It is made

In view of such a situation, in 1970,  R. C. Cooper  filed a petition against the Government of India in the Supreme Court.

⚫ The government’s side was that we have done this work under the Directive Principles of State Policy (‘b’ and ‘c’ of Article 39 ), while RC Cooper said that my fundamental rights have been violated by this.

Verdict of the Supreme Court: The Supreme Court, while giving a 10:1 verdict, said that,

(1) The law made by the government violates article 14. Why? Because the government took only the bank with 50 crore deposits, it discriminated by leaving the others.

(2) This law violates Article 31(2) because the compensation system mentioned in this law is inconsistent with Article 31(2).

In 1970, R. C. Cooper won that case and the Indira Gandhi government lost the case. The Supreme Court once again gave primacy to the fundamental rights over the Directive Principles of State Policy.

Indira Gandhi coming to power again in 1971 : Indira Gandhi got elections done ahead of time which happened in 1971. In the 1971 elections, when Indira Gandhi came to power with an absolute majority by winning more than 350 seats, she first dealt with all these. How?

The government made the 25th amendment to the constitution in 1971 and R.K. The decision in the C. Cooper case was overturned. For this, Article 31C was added to the constitution and it was written in it that –

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in article 13, no law made having regard to the Directive Principles of State Policy shall be void on the ground that it violates article 14 or article 19.

(2) No law declared to give effect to such policy shall be called in question in any court of law on the ground that it does not affect such policy.

⚫ In this way Indira Gandhi nationalized the banks. But in 1973, an important case of Kesavanand Bharti comes to the fore, under which the Supreme Court allowed amendment of fundamental rights but did not allow damage to the basic structure of the constitution.

But Indira Gandhi did not stop here, in 1975 she declared emergency. And brought the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act during the Emergency. Under which he changed every provision with which he had a problem.

As the power to take away the power of judicial review of the Supreme Court was not given to the Parliament by the Kesavananda Bharti case but still Indira Gandhi’s government did so through this amendment act.

Under this, clauses 4 and 5 were added by amending Article 368, the basic meaning of which was that under Article 368, the amendments to the constitution or what has been done cannot be judicially reviewed.

⚫ secondly In the Kesavananda Bharti case, the Supreme Court said that the Parliament can amend the Constitution but cannot rewrite the Constitution.

Through the 42nd Constitutional Amendment, so many changes were made in the Constitution that it was like writing the Constitution in a way. Even Article 31C could not escape this.

Article 31C was changed through Section 4 of the 42nd Constitutional Amendment . Where earlier it was written that – No law made on the basis of Article 39B and C can be declared void on the ground that it violates Article 14 or 19.

Now it was changed to write that under any provision of the Directive Principles of State Policy (i.e. under any article of Part IV), if any law is made, it shall not be set aside on the ground that it Violates Article 14 or Article 19. This was called supremacy of DPSP over fundamental rights.

Overall, the Directive Principles of State Policy were made effective on the fundamental rights. Especially on those rights which are mentioned in Articles 14, 19 and 31.

These provisions were struck down by the Supreme Court in the Minerva Mills case (1980). (Remember here that some of the provisions of the 42nd Constitutional Amendment were also repealed by the 44th Constitutional Amendment 1978.)

Minerva Mills Case 1980 : Minerva Mills was a textile mill located in Karnataka. Around 1970, the government felt that the production in this mill had reduced. A committee was constituted under the Industries Development Act 1951 to investigate this.

In October 1971, the committee submitted its report to the government (elections were held in March 1971 itself, in which Indira Gandhi came to power with a huge majority). 

As soon as the government received the report, under the Industries Development Act 1951, the government transferred the management of Minerva Mills to National Textile Corporation Ltd.

Later, under the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974, the government nationalized it and took it over. And through the 39th Constitutional Amendment, it was put in the Ninth Schedule created under Article 31B so that it could not be judicially reviewed.

Side of Minerva Mills : Minerva Mills challenged the nationalization order. In which Section 4 of the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act 1976 was also challenged. Under this, such a big change was made in Article 31C.

The Supreme Court, ruling 4:1, held that Section 4 of the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act (which amended Article 31C) was unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court also said that the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution is not unlimited, because  the limited power of the Parliament to amend the  Constitution is the basic structure of the Constitution.

In this way, once again the importance of fundamental rights was considered more than the Directive Principles of State Policy and the harmony and balance between the fundamental rights and the Directive Principles of State Policy was considered as the basic framework of the Constitution.

Overall, the status of Article 31C has become the same as it was before 1976. That is, the protection of Article 31C will be available only to that which is made to implement the direction of Article 39 (b) and (c).

But in Sajiv Kok v Bharat Coking 1983, the Supreme Court clarified the matter, saying that the interpretation in the Minerva Mills case was irrelevant.

So overall, it is still written in Article 31C of the Constitution that under any provision of the Directive Principles of State Policy (i.e. under any article of Part IV) if any law is made, it should be rejected on this basis. shall not be held that it violates Article 14 or Article 19.

And that is the story of Article 31C. It may be recalled here that in 1978, through the 44th Constitutional Amendment, the Right to Property, which was enshrined under Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31. It was removed from there and made a constitutional right under Article 300 ‘A’.

So overall this is Article 31C, I hope you have understood. To understand other article, you can use the link given below.

⚫ Article-31 (a) – Constitution of India

⚫ Article-31 (b) – Indian Constitution

| Related Article

Hindi Articles	English Articles
⚫ अनुच्छेद 25 ⚫ अनुच्छेद 26 ⚫ अनुच्छेद 27 ⚫ अनुच्छेद 28 ⚫ अनुच्छेद 29	⚫ Article 25 ⚫ Article 26 ⚫ Article 27 ⚫ Article 28 ⚫ Article 29

⚫ Constitution ⚫ Basics of Parliament ⚫ Fundamental Rights ⚫ Judiciary in India ⚫ Executive in India

⚫ Constitution ⚫ Basics of Parliament ⚫ Fundamental Rights ⚫ Judiciary in India ⚫ Executive in India

Disclaimer - The articles and their interpretations presented here are based on the original Constitution (latest edition), DD Basu's commentary on the Constitution (mainly) and various scholars of the Constitution (whose writings are available in newspapers, magazines and audio-visuals on the Internet). We have just tried to make it interesting and easy to understand.