Article 31A.-
Clause (1) of article 31A provides that notwithstanding anything in article 13 and the provisions of articles 14 and 19 no law shall be void if it is enacted for-
(a) the acquisition by the State of any estate or of any rights therein or the extinguishment or modification of any such rights, or
(b) the taking over of the management of any property by the State for a limited period either in the public interest or in order to secure the proper management of the property, or
(c) the amalgamation of two or more corporations either in the public interest or in order to secure the proper management of any of the corporations, or
(d) the extinguishment or modification of any rights of managing agents, secretaries and treasures, managing directors, directors or managers of corporations or of any voting rights of shareholders thereof, or
(e) the extinguishment or modification of any rights accruing by virtue of any agreement, lease or licence for the purpose of searching for or winning any mineral oil, or the premature termination or cancellation of any such agreement, lease, or licence.
For protection under article 31A, the law must satisfy three conditions-
(1) It must relate to any of the matters contained in sub-clauses (a) to (e).
(2) Where such law is enacted by State legislature, it must have been reserved for consideration of the President and received his assent.
(3) Where any law makes any provision for the acquisition by the State of any estate and where any land comprised therein is held by a person under his personal cultivation, it shall not be lawful for the State to acquire any portion of such land as is within the ceiling limit applicable to him under any law for the time being in force or any building or structure standing thereon or appurtenant thereto, unless the law relating to the acquisition of such land, building or structure provides for payment of compensation at a rate which shall not be less than the market value thereof. This condition was added by the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964.
The expres sion 'estate' and 'rights' in relation to an estate have been explained in clause (2) of article 31A.
Article 31B.-
Article 31B was also added by the Constiution (1st Amendment) Act, 1951. It provides that none of the Acts and regulations mentioned in the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution, shall be deemed to be void on the ground that they are inconsistent with anyone of the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution.
His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadgalvaru v. State of Kerala, MANU/SC/0445/1973 : AIR 1973 SC 1461: (1973) 4 SCC 225. Article 31B represents a novel, innovative and drastic technique of constitutional amendment. Legislative enactments are incorporated into the Constitution and immunized against all attacks on the ground of breach of any of the fundamental rights.
I. R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, MANU/SC/0595/2007 : AIR 2007 SC 861: 2007 AIR SCW 611: (2007) 2 SCC 1: (2007) 1 SCALE 197: 2007 (1) Supreme 137. Supreme Court held that any law which infringes the basic structure of the Constitution can be struck down. Parliament has power to amend Part III so as to abridge or take away fundamental rights but that power is subject to the limitation of basic structure doctrine.
Notwithstanding anything contained in article 13, no law giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing 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 article 14 or article 19 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.
The twenty-fifth Amendment inserted article 31C which made articles 14 and 19 inapplicable to certain categories of laws made by Parliament or by any Legislature. It was also added that a declaration in the law that it is to implement the directive principles enshrined in article 39(b) and (c) cannot be questioned in a court of law. Thus article 31C grants complete immunity from judicial scrutiny to a law if the President certified that it was enacted to promote the policy laid down in article 39(a) and (b), and the courts will not be able to scrutinise whether the law is enacted in fact to promote that policy.
The validity of the twenty-fifth Amendment introducing article 31C was questioned in Keshvananda Bharti v. State of Kerala, Sikri C.J. held that since Parliament cannot under article 368 abrogate fundamental rights, equally it cannot enable the legislature to abrogate them. Therefore article 31C must be declared unconstitutional.
Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0075/1980 : AIR 1980 SC 1789: (1980) 2 SCC 591: 1980 UJ (SC) 727. The extended version of article 31C was struck down by the Supreme Court. The Court ruled that the extension of the shield of article 31C to all the Directive Principles was beyond the amending power of Parliament under article 368 because by giving primacy to all Directive Principles over the Fundamental Rights in articles 14 and 19, the basic or essential features of the constitution viz., judicial review has been destroyed.
Waman Rao v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0092/1980 : AIR 1981 SC 271: (1980) 3 SCC 587: 1980 UJ (SC) 742: (1981) 2 SCR 1. The Supreme Court maintained that article 31C as it stood prior to the 42nd Amendment Act made in 1978, was valid as its constitutionality had been upheld in Keshvananda Bharti case.
Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company v. M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., MANU/SC/0040/1982 : AIR 1983 SC 239: (1983) 1 SCC 147: 1983 UJ (SC) 81: 1983 (1) SCJ 233: (1983) 1 SCR 1000. The Supreme Court struck down article 31C as unconstitutional (Amended portion in 42nd Amendment Act) on the ground that it destroys the "basic features" of the Constitution. The goal set out in Part IV have to be achieved without abrogating the means provided for by Part III. Thus there is no conflict between the directive principles and the fundamental rights. These are meant to supplement one another. The Court held that article 31C as originally introduced by the 25th Amendment is constitutionally valid.
I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, MANU/SC/0595/2007 : AIR 2007 SC 861: 2007 AIR SCW 611: (2007) 2 SCC 1: (2007) 1 SCALE 197: 2007 (1) Supreme 137. The Supreme Court held that any law which infringes basic structure of the Constitution can be struck down. Parliament has power to amend Part III so as to abridge or take away fundamental rights but that power is subject to the limitation of basic structure doctrine.
© Universal law Publishing Co.