(General Studies II – Polity section – Indian Constitution—Historical Underpinnings, Evolution, Features, Amendments, Significant Provisions and Basic Structure.)
- Article 31C, introduced by the 25th Amendment in 1971, protects laws enacted to distribute resources for the common good (Article 39(b)) and prevent wealth concentration (Article 39(c)) from being challenged under Articles 14 and 19.
- Article 39 lists directive principles that guide lawmaking but are not enforceable in court.
Historical Context –
- Article 31C was introduced following the Bank Nationalisation Case (Rustom Cavasjee Cooper vs Union of India, 1970) where the Supreme Court blocked the government from acquiring banks due to inadequate compensation provisions.
- The 25th Amendment aimed to overcome these hurdles by making laws to implement Articles 39(b) and 39(c) immune to challenges under Articles 14, 19, and 31.
Key Legal Developments –
- Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973): The Supreme Court struck down part of Article 31C, allowing courts to examine if laws align with Articles 39(b) and 39(c).
- 42nd Amendment (1976): Expanded Article 31C to cover all directive principles, but was partly struck down by the Supreme Court in Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), limiting Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
| Article | Directive Principle | Key Details |
| 39(a) | Right to Adequate Livelihood | The state shall direct its policy towards securing that all citizens, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood. |
| 39(b) | Distribution of Material Resources | The state shall ensure that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are distributed to serve the common good. |
| 39(c) | Prevention of Wealth Concentration | The state shall direct its policy towards ensuring that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment. |
| 39(d) | Equal Pay for Equal Work | The state shall direct its policy towards securing equal pay for equal work for both men and women. |
| 39(e) | Health and Strength of Workers | The state shall direct its policy towards ensuring that the health and strength of workers, men and women, and the tender age of children are not abused. |
| 39(f) | Childhood and Youth Development | The state shall direct its policy towards ensuring that children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity. |
Note:
- Article 39(b) and 39(c) are specifically protected under Article 31C.
- Laws enacted to give effect to these directives (39(b) & 39(c)) cannot be challenged on the grounds of being inconsistent with Art 14 & Art 19.
- Article 14 – Right to Equality & Article 19 – Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.
Current Case –
- The SC is reviewing Chapter VIII-A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (MHADA), which allows the government to acquire old, unsafe buildings in Mumbai to ensure community resources serve the common good, under Article 39(b).
- The case questions if “material resources of the community” includes private property like cessed buildings.
- The SC must decide if Article 31C survived post-Minerva Mills or if it was entirely invalidated.
Arguments –
- Petitioners argue the original Article 31C ceased to exist after the 42nd Amendment, so its invalidation in Minerva Mills means it doesn’t revive.
- The Centre contends the doctrine of revival applies, meaning the post-Kesavananda Bharati version of Article 31C should be reinstated.
Thus, in light of balancing individual rights and the state’s directive principles aimed at social and economic justice, Article 31C plays a crucial role. It reflects the constitutional commitment to ensure that material resources serve the common good and prevent wealth concentration.
