Digital Explorer: Saving of Certain Laws (Articles 31A, 31B, 31C)

Introduction to the Saving Clauses

Articles 31A, 31B, and 31C were incorporated into the Constitution through various amendments, primarily to shield laws promoting agrarian reforms and certain socio-economic objectives (linked to Directive Principles) from being challenged in courts on the grounds of violating certain Fundamental Rights, particularly Article 14 (Equality) and Article 19 (Six Freedoms). These provisions arose out of the conflict between the State's efforts to implement its socio-economic agenda and the judiciary's initial interpretations of the Right to Property (which was then a Fundamental Right under Article 31). While these articles provide a protective umbrella to specific categories of laws, their scope and the extent of immunity from judicial review have themselves been subject to significant judicial scrutiny, especially in the context of the Basic Structure doctrine.

Source: Broad understanding synthesized from Laxmikanth, 'Indian Polity'; D.D. Basu, 'Introduction to the Constitution of India'; M.P. Jain, 'Indian Constitutional Law'

Core Constitutional Provisions

6.10.1: Context & Purpose of Saving Clauses

These articles were added/amended to protect laws related to agrarian reform and socio-economic justice from being challenged on grounds of violation of certain FRs (esp. Art 14, 19).

Context:

Soon after the commencement of the Constitution, laws aimed at agrarian reforms (like abolition of zamindari, land ceilings, redistribution of land) faced legal challenges for allegedly violating Fundamental Rights, especially the Right to Property (Article 31) and Right to Equality (Article 14).

Legislative Response:

To overcome these judicial hurdles and to expedite socio-economic reforms considered essential for building an egalitarian society, Parliament introduced these "saving clauses" through constitutional amendments.

Primary FRs from which protection was sought:

Article 14: Equality before law and equal protection of laws.
Article 19: Protection of six rights (especially 19(1)(f) - right to acquire, hold, dispose of property, and 19(1)(g) - right to practice any profession, trade or business).
Article 31 (Original): Right to Property, including right to compensation for compulsory acquisition. (Though Article 31 was later deleted as an FR by the 44th Amendment, the protective scope of 31A and 31C initially included it and now protects against challenges under remaining FRs like 14 & 19).

Source: Laxmikanth, 'Indian Polity'; Granville Austin, 'Working a Democratic Constitution'

6.10.2: Article 31A - Saving of laws providing for acquisition of estates, etc.

Origin: Added by the 1st Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951, and subsequently amended.

Purpose: To protect laws related to agrarian reforms and other measures of economic restructuring from challenges under Articles 14 and 19.

6.10.2.1: Protects five categories of laws from challenge under Art 14 and 19.

Article 31A provides that no law dealing with the following five categories 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:

Acquisition by the State of any 'estate' or of any rights therein or the extinguishment or modification of any such rights.
'Estate' has been defined broadly to include various types of landholdings like jagir, inam, muafi, or other similar grants, and any land held for agriculture or ancillary purposes. This was crucial for zamindari abolition.
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.
Example: Government taking over management of sick industrial units for a limited time.
Amalgamation of two or more corporations either in the public interest or in order to secure the proper management of any of the corporations.
Extinguishment or modification of any rights of managing agents, secretaries and treasurers, managing directors, directors or managers of corporations, or of any voting rights of shareholders thereof.
Extinguishment or modification of any rights accruing by virtue of any agreement, lease or license for the purpose of searching for, or winning, any mineral or mineral oil, or the premature termination or cancellation of any such agreement, lease or license.
This was to facilitate state control over mineral resources.

Condition for Protection:

Such a law, if made by a state legislature, must have been reserved for the President's consideration and received his assent to get the protection of Article 31A.

6.10.2.2: Proviso regarding compensation at market value if land acquired is within statutory ceiling limit and under personal cultivation.

The second proviso to Article 31A (added by the 17th Amendment Act, 1964, and further refined) provides an important safeguard concerning compensation.

It states that 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.

Purpose of Proviso: To protect small landholders cultivating land within the statutory ceiling from having their land acquired without payment of market value compensation. This ensures that agrarian reforms do not unduly harm small farmers.

Source: Constitution of India (Bare Act - Article 31A); Laxmikanth, 'Indian Polity'

6.10.3: Article 31B - Validation of certain Acts and Regulations (Ninth Schedule)

Origin: Also added by the 1st Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951, along with the Ninth Schedule.

Purpose: To provide a wider blanket of protection to specific laws, primarily land reform laws, by placing them in the Ninth Schedule, thereby immunizing them from judicial review on grounds of violation of any Fundamental Rights.

6.10.3.1: Protects Acts and Regulations included in the Ninth Schedule from challenge on ground of inconsistency with any FR.

Text (paraphrased): Article 31B states that none of the Acts and Regulations specified in the Ninth Schedule nor any of the provisions thereof shall be deemed to be void, or ever to have become void, on the ground that such Act, Regulation or provision is inconsistent with, or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by, any provisions of Part III (Fundamental Rights).

Retrospective Effect: Article 31B has retrospective effect. This means that if a law is included in the Ninth Schedule, it is deemed to be valid from the date of its enactment, even if it was previously declared unconstitutional by a court.
Blanket Immunity (Intended): The protection was intended to be absolute – once a law is placed in the Ninth Schedule, its constitutional validity (vis-à-vis FRs) could not be questioned in any court.
Over time, numerous laws (not just land reforms, but also laws relating to industries, mines, nationalization, etc.) were added to the Ninth Schedule to shield them from judicial scrutiny.

6.10.3.2: Scope of judicial review expanded by I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007): Laws placed in Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973 (date of Kesavananda Bharati judgment) are open to challenge if they violate FRs forming part of Basic Structure.

The blanket immunity provided by Article 31B and the Ninth Schedule was significantly curtailed by the Supreme Court in the landmark judgment of I.R. Coelho vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) (often called the Ninth Schedule Case).

Key Rulings in I.R. Coelho Case:

While Parliament has the power to place laws in the Ninth Schedule, this power is not unlimited.
Laws placed in the Ninth Schedule on or after April 24, 1973 (the date of the Kesavananda Bharati judgment which propounded the Basic Structure doctrine) are open to challenge in court if they violate Fundamental Rights that form part of the 'basic structure' of the Constitution.
The Court held that judicial review is a basic feature, and the Ninth Schedule cannot be used to create a "constitutional black hole" where laws destructive of the basic structure are immunized.
If a law placed in the Ninth Schedule (after April 24, 1973) abrogates or abridges rights which are considered part of the basic structure (e.g., Articles 14, 15, 19, 21), it can be struck down.
The actual impact of the law on the rights has to be examined, not just the article under which the right is placed.

Significance:

The I.R. Coelho judgment reasserted the supremacy of the Basic Structure doctrine over the Ninth Schedule's protective cover, ensuring that fundamental constitutional values cannot be completely overridden.

Source: Constitution of India (Bare Act - Article 31B); Laxmikanth, 'Indian Polity'; I.R. Coelho vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2007

6.10.4: Article 31C - Saving of laws giving effect to certain Directive Principles

Origin: Added by the 25th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971.

Purpose: To give primacy to certain Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) over certain Fundamental Rights, in line with the socialist objectives of the State.

6.10.4.1: Original provision (25th Amendment): Law to implement DPSPs under Art 39(b) or 39(c) cannot be challenged under Art 14, 19, or 31. Declaration that law is for such purpose was made non-justiciable.

As originally inserted by the 25th Amendment, Article 31C had two parts:

First Part: No law giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing the principles specified in clause (b) or clause (c) of Article 39 (DPSPs relating to equitable distribution of material resources of the community and prevention of concentration of wealth and means of production) 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, Article 19 or Article 31 (Right to Property, then an FR).
Second Part: 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. (This part sought to oust judicial review of the nexus between the law and the DPSP objective).

6.10.4.2: Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973): Upheld first part of Art 31C, struck down second part (non-justiciability of declaration) as violating judicial review (Basic Structure).

In the Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973) case:

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the first part of Article 31C (saving laws for Art 39(b) & (c) from challenge under Art 14, 19, 31).
However, the Court struck down the second part of Article 31C (the declaration clause that sought to make the nexus non-justiciable). It held that this part violated the basic feature of judicial review.
Thus, courts retained the power to examine whether a law claiming protection under Article 31C genuinely gives effect to the policy of Article 39(b) or (c).

6.10.4.3: 42nd Amendment expanded scope to cover ALL DPSPs.

The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976, sought to widen the scope of Article 31C.

It amended Article 31C to provide that any law giving effect to any or all of the Directive Principles (not just Art 39(b) & (c)) would be protected from challenge under Articles 14 and 19 (Article 31 was by then on its way out as an FR).

6.10.4.4: Minerva Mills Case (1980): Struck down this extension as violating Basic Structure (harmony and balance between FRs and DPSPs). So, Art 31C is now confined to protecting laws giving effect to Art 39(b) and 39(c) only.

In the Minerva Mills Ltd. vs. Union of India (1980) case:

The Supreme Court struck down the extension of Article 31C to all Directive Principles made by the 42nd Amendment.
The Court held that this extension violated the basic structure of the Constitution, particularly the harmony and balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles. Granting absolute supremacy to all DPSPs over FRs (specifically Art 14 & 19) would destroy this balance.

Current Position of Article 31C:

As a result of the Minerva Mills judgment, Article 31C is now confined to protecting only those laws that give effect to the Directive Principles specified in Article 39(b) and Article 39(c).
Such laws cannot be challenged on the ground of violating Article 14 or Article 19.
The judicial review of whether the law actually gives effect to Art 39(b)/(c) remains.

Source: Constitution of India (Bare Act - Article 31C); Laxmikanth, 'Indian Polity'; Landmark SC Judgments like Kesavananda Bharati and Minerva Mills

Evolution & Key Milestones

1951

1st Constitutional Amendment Act

Introduced Articles 31A and 31B, along with the Ninth Schedule, to protect land reform laws from judicial challenge.
1964

17th Amendment Act

Refined Article 31A, adding a proviso to ensure market value compensation for certain lands under personal cultivation within ceiling limits.
1971

25th Constitutional Amendment Act

Introduced Article 31C, protecting laws implementing DPSPs (Art 39(b) & (c)) from challenge under Articles 14, 19, and 31. Also included a non-justiciability clause for such laws.
April 24, 1973

Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala

Propounded the 'Basic Structure Doctrine'. Upheld the first part of Article 31C (protection for 39(b)&(c) laws) but struck down the non-justiciability clause, reasserting judicial review.
1976

42nd Constitutional Amendment Act

Attempted to expand the scope of Article 31C to protect laws implementing all Directive Principles from challenge under Articles 14 and 19.
1980

Minerva Mills Ltd. vs. Union of India

Struck down the 42nd Amendment's expansion of Article 31C, holding that the 'harmony and balance' between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles is part of the Basic Structure.
2007

I.R. Coelho vs. State of Tamil Nadu

Reasserted that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule on or after April 24, 1973, are open to judicial review if they violate the Fundamental Rights that form part of the 'basic structure' of the Constitution.

Mains-Ready Analytical Notes

Rationale and Impact of Saving Clauses

These clauses were born out of the necessity to implement land reforms and other socio-economic measures which were often hindered by judicial interpretations of Fundamental Rights (especially Right to Property). They represent Parliament's attempt to give primacy to certain socio-economic objectives over individual property and equality rights in specific contexts. Impact: Facilitated zamindari abolition and other agrarian reforms, and nationalization of certain industries. However, also led to concerns about erosion of FRs and judicial review.

Ninth Schedule – From "Constitutional Black Hole" to Judicial Scrutiny

The Ninth Schedule was designed as an iron-clad protection for laws included within it. For a long time, it was seen as beyond judicial review concerning FR violations. The I.R. Coelho judgment was a landmark assertion of judicial supremacy and the Basic Structure doctrine. It ensured that the Ninth Schedule could not be misused to shield laws that fundamentally damage the Constitution's core principles. This judgment restored a degree of balance, ensuring that while Parliament can protect specific laws, it cannot do so at the cost of destroying the Constitution's basic identity.

Article 31C – Balancing FRs and DPSPs

Article 31C represents a direct attempt to resolve the conflict between certain FRs and DPSPs. The Kesavananda and Minerva Mills judgments shaped its current form, emphasizing that while DPSPs are crucial, they cannot completely override FRs in a way that destroys the "harmony and balance" between them, which itself is a basic feature. The current limited scope of Article 31C (only for Art 39(b) & (c)) reflects this judicially mandated balance. It allows pursuit of key socialist objectives (equitable resource distribution, preventing wealth concentration) while generally upholding the primacy of FRs.

Implications for Judicial Review

These saving clauses directly sought to curtail judicial review. The judiciary, through landmark cases, has pushed back against absolute ouster of its review powers, especially by linking these clauses to the Basic Structure doctrine. This shows a dynamic interplay where Parliament tries to assert legislative supremacy for socio-economic goals, and the judiciary tries to maintain its role as the guardian of the Constitution and its fundamental features.

Prelims-Ready Notes

Saving Clauses (Art 31A, 31B, 31C): Protect certain laws from challenge under some FRs (esp. Art 14, 19). Aimed at socio-economic reforms.
Article 31A (Added by 1st Am.):
- Saves 5 categories of laws (acquisition of estates, taking over management, amalgamation of corps, extinguishment of rights of directors/mining leases) from challenge under Art 14 & 19.
- Proviso: Compensation at market value for land under personal cultivation within ceiling limit.
Article 31B & Ninth Schedule (Added by 1st Am.):
- Laws in 9th Schedule protected from challenge for violating ANY FR. Retrospective.
- I.R. Coelho Case (2007): Laws put in 9th Sch. after April 24, 1973 (Kesavananda judgment date) are open to judicial review if they violate Basic Structure (including FRs forming part of Basic Structure).
Article 31C (Added by 25th Am.):
- Original: Saved laws for DPSPs in Art 39(b) & 39(c) from challenge under Art 14, 19, (old)31. Declaration of purpose was non-justiciable.
- Kesavananda Bharati (1973): Upheld first part (protection for 39b,c laws); Struck down second part (non-justiciability of declaration) as violating judicial review (Basic Structure).
- 42nd Am (1976): Extended Art 31C to ALL DPSPs.
- Minerva Mills (1980): Struck down this extension (violated Basic Structure - harmony between FRs & DPSPs).
- Current Status of Art 31C: Protects laws giving effect to DPSPs under Art 39(b) and 39(c) ONLY, from challenge under Art 14 & 19. Judicial review of nexus with 39(b)/(c) remains.

Current Affairs & Recent Developments

Ninth Schedule Challenges (Ongoing Potential):
While no major law has been added to the Ninth Schedule recently, the principles of I.R. Coelho would apply if any such attempt is made or if existing post-1973 laws in the Schedule are challenged on basic structure grounds. Some state laws related to reservations (e.g., Tamil Nadu's 69% reservation law, which is in the Ninth Schedule) are often subjects of legal discussion and potential future review based on basic structure principles.
Agrarian Laws and Land Acquisition:
Debates around land acquisition for development projects, compensation, and impact on farmers sometimes bring up the historical context of land reforms and the need for balancing public purpose with individual rights, which Articles 31A, 31B, and 31C historically tried to address.
Directive Principles Implementation:
Whenever the government introduces policies aimed at achieving DPSPs (e.g., related to social justice, economic equality), the constitutional validity and potential conflicts with FRs are discussed, and the relevance of provisions like Article 31C (even in its limited scope) might be invoked in arguments.

Note: These articles are foundational but see direct legislative action (amendments to them or additions to 9th Schedule) less frequently now compared to earlier decades. Their relevance is more in understanding the historical context of FR evolution and the current principles of judicial review concerning them.

UPSC Previous Year Questions

Prelims MCQs

1. The Ninth Schedule was introduced in the Constitution of India during the prime ministership of: (UPSC CSE 2019)

(a) Jawaharlal Nehru
(b) Lal Bahadur Shastri
(c) Indira Gandhi
(d) Morarji Desai

2. Consider the following statements: (UPSC CSE 2017, tests understanding of 9th Schedule and judicial review)
1. The Parliament of India can place a particular law in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution of India.
2. The validity of a law placed in the Ninth Schedule cannot be examined by any court and no judgement can be made on it.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

(a) 1 only
(b) 2 only
(c) Both 1 and 2
(d) Neither 1 nor 2

3. Article 31C of the Indian Constitution, in its current form, provides that laws giving effect to the Directive Principles specified in which of the following articles cannot be challenged on the ground of violating Article 14 or Article 19?

(a) Article 38 only
(b) Article 39(b) and 39(c) only
(c) All Directive Principles in Part IV
(d) Article 39(a), 39(b) and 39(c)

Mains Questions

1. What was the purpose behind the introduction of Articles 31A, 31B, and 31C in the Indian Constitution? How has the judiciary interpreted their scope, particularly with respect to the Ninth Schedule and the Basic Structure doctrine? (Analytical)

2. "The Ninth Schedule of the Indian Constitution, once considered an impregnable shield against judicial review, has been significantly tempered by the 'Basic Structure' doctrine." Elaborate on this statement, tracing the judicial evolution concerning the Ninth Schedule.

Direction/Value Points:

Introduction: Explain Art 31B and Ninth Schedule's original purpose – absolute protection.
Initial Phase: Impregnable Shield: For decades, laws in 9th Schedule were largely immune from challenge on FR grounds.
Seeds of Change (Kesavananda Bharati, 1973): Propounded Basic Structure doctrine. While not directly about 9th Schedule initially, it laid the foundation. The cut-off date (April 24, 1973) became crucial later.
Waman Rao Case (1981): SC held that amendments to 9th Schedule made after Kesavananda date could be examined on basic structure grounds.
I.R. Coelho vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) – The Turning Point:
- Affirmed that judicial review is a basic feature.
- Held that ALL laws (including those in 9th Schedule) are subject to Basic Structure test if inserted after April 24, 1973.
- If a law in 9th Schedule (post-1973) violates FRs that form part of basic structure (e.g., Art 14, 19, 21), it can be struck down.
- The "twin test" for such laws: (i) Does it violate an FR? (ii) If yes, does that FR form part of the basic structure?
Impact of I.R. Coelho: Ninth Schedule no longer provides absolute immunity. Balance restored between parliamentary power and judicial review.
Conclusion: The journey of the Ninth Schedule illustrates the dynamic nature of Indian constitutionalism. The I.R. Coelho judgment effectively "tempered" its shield, ensuring that even laws placed under its protection must ultimately conform to the fundamental tenets and basic structure of the Constitution, thus upholding judicial review as a critical safeguard.