Context: The recent hearing in the Supreme Court regarding the acquisition and redistribution of private property has brought into focus the complex legal issue surrounding Article 31C of the Indian Constitution.

Article 31C

• This provision was introduced in 1971 through the Constitution (Twenty-fifth) Amendment Act.

• It aims to protect laws enacted to ensure the equitable distribution of material resources for the common good, as outlined in Article 39(b) and 39(c) of the Directive Principles of State Policy.

Article 39(b) and (c)

Clauses (b) and (c) of Article 39 provide:

• “The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing-

• (b) that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good;

• (c) that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment.”

• Article 31C was introduced in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in the “Bank Nationalisation Case” (Rustom Cavasjee Cooper vs Union of India, 1970), which challenged the government’s ability to acquire property without adequate compensation.

• In 1976, Parliament enacted The Constitution (Forty-second) Amendment Act, which expanded the protection under Article 31C to “all or any of the principles laid down in Part IV of the Constitution”, under clause 4.

• As a result, every single directive principle (Articles 36-51) was protected from challenges under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.

• Articles 14 states that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India, on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.

Article 19 guarantees to every Citizen of India the following six basic, fundamental freedoms-

• 19(a). Freedom of speech and expression.

• 19(b).Freedom to assemble peaceably and without arms

• 19(c). Freedom to form associations or unions or co-operative societies

• 19(d). Freedom to move freely throughout the territory of India

• 19(e). Freedom to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India and

• 19(g). Freedom to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation trade or business

Legal Challenges and Complications

• The Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) introduced the concept of the “basic structure” of the Constitution, leading to the partial striking down of Article 31C.

• Subsequent amendments, notably the Constitution (Forty-second) Amendment Act in 1976, expanded the scope of Article 31C to protect all Directive Principles from challenges under Articles 14 and 19.

• However, the Minerva Mills v. Union of India case (1980) further complicated matters by striking down parts of the 42nd Amendment, raising questions about the continued validity of Article 31C.

Current SC Proceedings

• The ongoing case in the Supreme Court revolves around the interpretation of Article 39(b) in relation to private property acquisition laws, particularly Chapter VIII-A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976.

• The key question before the court is whether Article 31C remains valid following the Minerva Mills judgment, or if it has been effectively nullified.

Arguments Presented

• Senior Advocate contends that the original Article 31C was superseded by the 42nd Amendment, implying that its subsequent invalidation in Minerva Mills rendered it defunct.

• Conversely, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argues for the doctrine of revival, asserting that the pre-amended provisions of Article 31C should be reinstated following the Minerva Mills decision.

Implications and Future Directions

• The outcome of the Supreme Court’s deliberation on Article 31C will have far-reaching implications for the balance between fundamental rights and Directive Principles, particularly in matters concerning private property rights.

• The court’s decision will shape the legal landscape surrounding socio-economic reforms and the extent of judicial scrutiny over laws aimed at achieving these reforms.