Article 31C: Why the SC is deciding if a fundamental right still exists in a case about private property?

Article 31C: Why the SC is deciding if a fundamental right still exists in a case about private property?

Subject: Polity

Sec: Constitution

Context:

The Supreme Court Constitution Bench reserved its judgment on the issue of whether private resources form part of the ‘material resource of the community’ under Article 39(b) of the Constitution.

More on news:

• A nine-judge Bench of the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud decided to take up another issue of “radical constitutional consequence”: does Article 31C still exist?
• The court is hearing a challenge to Chapter VIII-A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (MHADA). 

Introduction of Article 31C:

• Article 31C was introduced by The Constitution (Twenty-fifth) Amendment Act, 1971.
• In the  “Bank Nationalization Case” (Rustom Cavasjee Cooper vs Union Of India, 1970), the Supreme Court stopped the Centre from acquiring control of 14 commercial banks by enacting The Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1969.
• An eleven-judge Bench struck the Act down by referring to the now-repealed Article 31(2), which states that the government could not acquire any property for public purposes under any law unless the law fixes compensation for the property.
• In the Bank Nationalization case, the court held that the ‘right to compensation’ was not appropriately ensured by the Banking Act.
• The government, through the 25th Amendment sought to surmount the difficulties placed in the way of giving effect to the Directive Principles of State Policy.
• One of the means employed to do so was the introduction of Article 31C, which stated its two provisions as follows:
  • No law giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing the principles specified in clause (b) or clause (c) of article 39 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; and
  • 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.

The journey of Article 31C:

• The 25th amendment was challenged in the seminal Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) which held that the Constitution has a “basic structure” that cannot be altered, even by a constitutional amendment.
• As a part of this verdict, the court struck down the last portion of Article 31C, i.e., the part that states “and 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 opened the door for the court to examine laws that had been enacted to further Articles 39(b) and 39(c), to determine whether the purpose of those laws actually lined up with the principles espoused in these provisions.
• In 1976, Parliament enacted the 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.
• It was meant to give precedence to the directive principles over those fundamental rights which have been allowed to be relied upon to frustrate socio-economic reforms for implementing the directive principles.
• In 1980, in Minerva Mills v. Union of India, the SC struck down clauses 4 and 5 of the amendment. 
• The five-judge Bench held that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution was limited, and it could not be used to remove these limitations and grant itself unlimited and absolute powers of amendment.

Constitutional Provisions in news:

• Article 39(b) obligates the state to direct its policy towards securing the ownership and control of the material resources of the community that are so distributed as best to subserve the common good.
• Article 39(c) of the DPSP states that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment.
• Article 300A required the state to follow due procedure and authority of law to deprive a person of his or her private property.