Article 31B was introduced into the Constitution by the 1st Amendment Act in 1951, almost immediately after the Constitution came into force. It was brought in primarily to protect land reform laws from being challenged in courts on the ground that they violated Fundamental Rights, particularly the right to property, which was then a fundamental right under Article 31. This article, along with Article 31A and the Ninth Schedule, created a mechanism to shield certain laws from judicial review concerning Fundamental Rights.
The introduction of Article 31B reflected the Parliament’s intent to ensure that socio-economic reforms, especially those related to land distribution and property rights, could be implemented without facing legal hurdles based on fundamental rights guarantees. It created a special category of laws that were deemed valid and protected from challenges under Part III of the Constitution.
Original Text
31B. Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in article 31A, 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 of the provisions of Part III, and notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court or tribunal to the contrary, each of the said Acts and Regulations shall, subject to the power of any competent Legislature to repeal or amend it, continue in force.
Detailed Explanation
Article 31B provides a protective umbrella for laws included in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution. Its main effect is to make these laws immune from challenge in courts on the grounds that they violate or are inconsistent with any of the fundamental rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution. This immunity is conferred on the specific Acts and Regulations listed in the Ninth Schedule.
The phrase “Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in article 31A” indicates that Article 31B operates independently of Article 31A. While Article 31A protects specific classes of laws (like laws acquiring estates, taking over management of property, amalgamation of corporations, etc.) from challenge under Articles 14 and 19, Article 31B protects specific, enumerated Acts and Regulations listed in the Ninth Schedule from challenge based on any fundamental right in Part III.
The article also states that these laws “shall not be deemed to be void, or ever to have become void,” giving it a retrospective effect. This means that even if a law included in the Ninth Schedule was previously held invalid by a court for violating a fundamental right, it would be deemed valid under Article 31B.
The purpose was initially to protect laws related to agrarian reforms and the abolition of the Zamindari system. However, over time, various other types of laws have been added to the Ninth Schedule, expanding the scope of Article 31B’s protection far beyond its original intent.
Despite the seemingly absolute protection offered by Article 31B, the Supreme Court, in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), introduced the ‘Basic Structure Doctrine’. This doctrine implies that even constitutional amendments (including those adding laws to the Ninth Schedule) are subject to judicial review if they violate the basic structure of the Constitution. Subsequent judgments, notably the I.R. Coelho case (2007), specifically dealt with Article 31B. The court ruled that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after the date of the Kesavananda Bharati judgment (April 24, 1973) are not immune from judicial review and can be challenged if they violate the Basic Structure of the Constitution. This significantly curtailed the absolute immunity previously associated with Article 31B and the Ninth Schedule.
Detailed Notes
- Introduced by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951.
- Added along with Article 31A and the Ninth Schedule.
- Provides validation for specific Acts and Regulations listed in the Ninth Schedule.
- Grants immunity to these listed laws from being challenged or deemed void on the ground of inconsistency with or abridgment of any fundamental rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution.
- Acts and Regulations listed in the Ninth Schedule are protected, even if they violate fundamental rights.
- Operates independently of Article 31A, covering specific listed laws rather than classes of laws.
- Has retrospective effect, validating listed laws from their enactment, notwithstanding any prior court judgment.
- Initial purpose: To protect land reform and abolition of Zamindari laws from judicial challenges based on the right to property (then a fundamental right).
- Scope expanded over time with the addition of numerous non-land reform laws to the Ninth Schedule through subsequent constitutional amendments.
- Judicial Review and Basic Structure Doctrine:
- The seemingly absolute protection was limited by the Supreme Court.
- In the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), the Court propounded the Basic Structure Doctrine, stating that constitutional amendments cannot alter the basic structure of the Constitution.
- In the I.R. Coelho case (2007), the Court held that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973, are not immune from judicial review and can be examined to see if they violate the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
- Laws placed in the Ninth Schedule before April 24, 1973, generally retain immunity from challenge on fundamental rights grounds, unless they violate the basic structure in an egregious manner (though the primary focus of judicial review post-I.R. Coelho is on post-1973 laws).
- The protection under Article 31B is subject to the power of a competent Legislature to repeal or amend the Act.
Additional Comments
- Article 31B represents a significant legislative attempt to bypass judicial review of certain laws, particularly those aimed at socio-economic reform.
- The expansion of the Ninth Schedule to include laws unrelated to land reform has been a subject of controversy and legal debate, raising concerns about potential misuse to shield arbitrary legislation.
- The Supreme Court’s judgment in the I.R. Coelho case (2007) significantly limited the power of Article 31B by subjecting post-1973 Ninth Schedule laws to the Basic Structure test, restoring a degree of judicial oversight.
- Despite the limitations imposed by judicial pronouncements, Article 31B and the Ninth Schedule remain unique features of the Indian Constitution, demonstrating the dynamic interplay between parliamentary sovereignty and judicial review.
Summary
Article 31B of the Indian Constitution, introduced by the 1st Amendment, validates specific Acts and Regulations listed in the Ninth Schedule, protecting them from challenge on the grounds of violating any fundamental rights in Part III. Initially intended for land reform laws, its scope expanded over time. While it provides powerful immunity, the Supreme Court has ruled that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973, are subject to judicial review based on the Basic Structure Doctrine, limiting the absolute nature of the protection offered by this article.