Existence of Article 31C in question

Source: The post existence of Article 31C in question has been created, based on the article “Article 31C: Why the SC is deciding if a fundamental right still exists in a case about private property?” published in “Indian Express” on 2nd May 2024.

UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS Paper 2-Indian Constitution

News: The Supreme Court of India is determining if Article 31C still exists. This article protects laws that distribute wealth and resources under Article 39(b) and (c) of the Constitution, following earlier decisions that impacted property laws and raised questions about its ongoing validity.

For details information on Redistribution of wealth read this Article here

What is Article 31C?

Introduction of Article 31C: It was added to the Indian Constitution in 1971 via the 25th Amendment, primarily in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in the Bank Nationalisation Case. In this case the court had invalidated a government act to nationalize banks due to issues with the compensation offered.

Purpose of Article 31C: The article shields laws that implement the principles specified in Article 39(b) and (c)—ensuring the distribution of material resources to prevent wealth concentration—from being challenged on the grounds of violating rights to equality and freedoms under Article 14 and Article 19.

Why is the existence of Article 31C in question?

Legal Revisions and Challenges: The existence of Article 31C is in question due to its history of amendments and legal challenges. Notably in the Kesavananda Bharati case where parts of it were struck down, affecting its overall standing.

Impact of the Minerva Mills Ruling: In the Minerva Mills case, the Supreme Court limited Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution. This cast doubt on the expansions made to Article 31C under the 42nd Amendment, specifically whether the original version of Article 31C survived these changes.

Current Supreme Court Review: Currently, the Supreme Court is examining Article 31C to address unresolved constitutional uncertainties. This includes its application in property laws such as the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act. The Act uses Article 39(b) to justify the redistribution of cessed properties, making this review crucial for determining the future application of Article 31C in socio-economic legislation.

What are the arguments regarding Article 31C?

Argument Against Automatic Revival: Senior Advocate Zal Andhyarujina argued that the original Article 31C was completely replaced by an expanded version in the 42nd Amendment. Therefore, when the new version was struck down in the Minerva Mills case, the original could not automatically revive. This argument is based on the legal principle that once replaced, the original provision ceases to exist unless explicitly reinstated.

Argument for Doctrine of Revival: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta contended that the original Article 31C should automatically be revived based on the doctrine of revival. This view is supported by precedents like the ruling on the National Judicial Appointments Commission, where struck-down amendments led to the revival of previous provisions, suggesting that the pre-amended Article 31C should resurface if the subsequent amendments are invalidated.

Question for practice:

Examine the arguments for and against the current validation of Article 31C in the Indian Constitution.