Exception to Fundamental Rights – UPSC Notes – Indian Polity
Laws Protected from Challenge under Article 31A:
Article 31A safeguards five types of laws from being questioned or declared invalid due to violating fundamental rights like equality (Article 14) and certain freedoms (Article 19). These laws are related to reforms in agricultural land, industry, and commerce, and include:
(a) Acquisition of estates and related rights by the State.
(b) Taking over the management of properties by the State.
(c) Amalgamation of corporations.
(d) Extinguishment or modification of rights of directors or shareholders of corporations.
(e) Extinguishment or modification of mining leases.
It’s important to note that Article 31A doesn’t automatically protect a state law from being reviewed by the judiciary. For protection, the law must be submitted for the president’s consideration and receive his approval.
This Article also ensures that when the state takes over land that someone is personally cultivating, and the land is within the legal limit set by the government, the person is entitled to receive compensation at the market value for their land.
Validation of Certain Acts and Regulations:
Article 31B protects acts and regulations listed in the Ninth Schedule from being challenged or declared invalid for violating any fundamental rights. This means that any law included in the Ninth Schedule cannot be questioned on the grounds of conflicting with fundamental rights. The coverage of Article 31B is broader compared to Article 31A.
Unlike Article 31A, which specifically shields laws related to certain categories, Article 31B provides immunity to any law in the Ninth Schedule from infringement on fundamental rights, regardless of whether it falls under the categories outlined in Article 31A.
However, in a crucial judgment during the I.R. Coelho case in 2007, the Supreme Court made a significant ruling. It stated that laws included in the Ninth Schedule do not enjoy complete immunity from judicial review. The court emphasized that judicial review is a fundamental aspect of the constitution and cannot be eliminated by placing a law in the Ninth Schedule.
According to the judgment, laws added to the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973, can be challenged in court if they violate fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 or if they undermine the ‘basic structure‘ of the constitution. The concept of ‘basic structure‘ was first introduced by the Supreme Court in its landmark decision in the Kesavananda Bharati Case on April 24, 1973.
Originally, in 1951, the Ninth Schedule included only 13 acts and regulations. However, as of 2016, their number has increased to 282. Out of these, the acts and regulations of the state legislature primarily focus on land reforms and the abolition of the zamindari system, while those of the Parliament address various other matters.
Saving of Laws Implementing Directive Principles
Article 31C, added through the 25th Amendment Act of 1971, includes the following provisions:
(a) No law aiming to implement the socialistic directive principles outlined in Article 39(b) or (c) shall be considered void due to violation of fundamental rights conferred by Article 14 (equality before the law and equal protection of laws) or Article 19 (protection of six rights related to speech, assembly, movement, etc.).
(b) No law that declares its purpose is to give effect to such a policy can be challenged in any court on the grounds that it fails to achieve this policy.
In the Kesavananda Bharati case in 1973, the Supreme Court ruled that the second provision of Article 31C was unconstitutional and invalid. This provision, stating that laws aiming to implement socialistic directive principles cannot be questioned in court, was deemed invalid because the court affirmed that judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be eliminated.
However, the first provision of Article 31C was upheld as constitutional and valid in the same case.
Later, the 42nd Amendment Act (1976) broadened the scope of the first provision of Article 31C by protecting any law aimed at implementing directive principles specified in Part IV of the Constitution, not just those in Article 39 (b) or (c). This expansion, however, was declared unconstitutional and invalid by the Supreme Court in the Minerva Mills case (1980).
FAQs on Exception to Fundamental Rights
1. What laws are protected under Article 31A, and how does this article safeguard them from challenges based on fundamental rights?
Article 31A safeguards laws related to reforms in agricultural land, industry, and commerce from being declared invalid for violating fundamental rights. These include the acquisition of estates by the State, taking over property management, amalgamation of corporations, and extinguishment or modification of rights related to corporations and mining leases. To receive protection, a state law must be submitted for the president’s consideration and approval. Additionally, Article 31A ensures compensation at market value for personally cultivated land taken over by the state within legal limits.
2. How does Article 31B differ from Article 31A in protecting laws from being challenged? What are the key provisions and limitations of Article 31B?
Article 31B protects acts and regulations in the Ninth Schedule from being challenged for violating fundamental rights. Unlike Article 31A, it offers broader immunity, covering any law in the Ninth Schedule. However, in the I.R. Coelho case (2007), the Supreme Court ruled that laws in the Ninth Schedule are not completely immune, allowing judicial review for violations of specific fundamental rights or the ‘basic structure’ of the constitution.
3. Can laws included in the Ninth Schedule be completely immune from judicial review, as outlined in Article 31B? Explain the significant judgment in the I.R. Coelho case (2007) that addressed this issue.
No, laws in the Ninth Schedule are not completely immune from judicial review. The I.R. Coelho case in 2007 established that laws in the Ninth Schedule can be reviewed if they violate fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21, or if they undermine the ‘basic structure’ of the constitution. This ruling affirmed the importance of judicial review as a fundamental aspect of the constitution.
4. What is the significance of Article 31C in protecting laws aiming to implement socialistic directive principles from being declared void? How did the Supreme Court’s rulings in the Kesavananda Bharati case and subsequent amendments impact Article 31C?
Article 31C protects laws implementing socialistic directive principles outlined in Article 39(b) or (c) from being void due to violations of fundamental rights (Article 14 and Article 19). The Supreme Court, in the Kesavananda Bharati case in 1973, ruled the second provision of Article 31C as unconstitutional, emphasizing the inviolability of judicial review. The 42nd Amendment Act (1976) broadened the scope of the first provision, but this expansion was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the Minerva Mills case (1980).
5. How did the 42nd Amendment Act (1976) attempt to expand the scope of Article 31C, and why was this expansion declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the Minerva Mills case (1980)?
The 42nd Amendment Act (1976) aimed to expand the scope of Article 31C by protecting any law implementing directive principles specified in Part IV of the Constitution, not just those in Article 39(b) or (c). The Supreme Court, in the Minerva Mills case (1980), declared this expansion unconstitutional, emphasizing that it exceeded the permissible limits of amending the Constitution. The court reaffirmed the principle that the ‘basic structure’ of the constitution cannot be altered through amendments.
For Complete Polity Click Here.
Join our Official Telegram Channel HERE
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel HERE
Follow our Instagram ID HERE
