Introduction
“The fundamental rights must harmonize with the directive principles — for liberty without equality can be hollow, and property without justice can be tyranny.”
— Jawaharlal Nehru, during debates on the First Constitutional Amendment, 1951
When enacted, the Indian Constitution gave the Right to Property as a Fundamental Right, under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31, ensuring the freedom of citizens to acquire, hold, and dispose of property. But with the conflict between land reforms, zamindari abolition, and socialist economic equality, even individual rights to property were eroded shortly after independence.
To reconcile the competing interests of property and the public good, the State embarked on constitutional amendments, which gave primacy to social justice and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs). That marked a significant paradigm shift from helping to protect property as an individual right, to viewing property as a social function for the public good.
Read about Freedom of speech & Expression from here.
Amendments that Altered the Fabric of Property Law
- First Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951: Including Articles 31A and 31B, and creating the Ninth Schedule to protect land reform laws being struck down for violating Fundamental Rights;
- 25th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971: Gave primacy to certain DPSPs (Articles 39(b) & 39(c)) over Articles 14 and 19 by adding Article 31C;
- 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976: Extended Article 31C’s protection to all DPSPs (later struck down in Minerva Mills);
- 44th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1978: Deleted the Right to Property as a Fundamental Right (Article 19(1)(f) & Article 31 repealed).
Introduced Article 300A, making property a constitutional/legal right, not a Fundamental Right.
Current Relevance
The Supreme Court, in Property Owners Association vs. State of Maharashtra (2022), addressed the question of the relationship between private property rights and collective good, and reaffirmed in judgement that property may benefit the community, but private property is not ipso facto a “material resource of the community.” This judgement is reflective of the contemporary reading of Articles 31A to 31C, weighing the socialist aim of the Articles against security of investment, as well as individual rights.
Read about Mysterious history behind Khajuraho Temples and its Architecture.
Article 31A – Safeguarding Anti-Land Reform and Socialist Measures
Inserted by: First Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951
The Purpose: To safeguard agrarian reform and socialist based legislation from being invalidated for assaulting the basic tenets of Articles 14 (Equality) and 19 (Freedom).
It was important during the Zamindari Abolition Movement, when current damaged injustice movements surrounding property could withstand legal review.
It Immunizes five categories of laws, including:
- Acquiring estates or interests therein.
- Taking over management of properties.
- Merging corporations.
- Amendment of rights held by shareholders.
- Exerting regulation upon mining, or rights to minerals.
As this law is under the category of state-level and effectual upon Presidential Assent, there are some limitations – it would not apply as an example for land held for personal cultivation and outside of the ceiling limit, unless those holdings were to be compensated with stipulated, market-value, as opposed to speculative or nonexistent valuations based as expressly market-value compensation would be sufficient to mandate acquisition.
Judicial Interpretation
- State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh (1952): Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh was the first of the major land acquisition and compensation cases, which ultimately upheld the land reform legislation and provided legitimacy to it under Article 31A.
- L. Jagannath v. State of Orissa (1954): Constitutionality of the Orissa Land Reforms Act was upheld, famous for underscoring the socialist intent of Article 31A, in continuing to political government policy.
- Kunjukutty Sahib v. State of Kerala (1972): Under Article 31A, it was affirmed that not only agricultural reform statutes, but industrial or cooperatives statutes could be qualified as legislation that “serve social welfare and maintain equity.”
Current discussions regarding land pooling, industrial corridors, special economic zones (SEZs) and public-private acquisition, develop the spirit of Article 31A; balancing economic development with social equity and amelioration.
Article 31A remains a constitutional commitment, as India moves towards the notion sustainable and meaningful growth, property must serve, society and not just individual private property rights.
Section 31B — The Ninth Schedule and Judicial Immunity
Background: Introduced through the First Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951, in conjunction with the Ninth Schedule.
Aim: To safeguard certain state laws, especially regarding zamindari abolition and land reforms, from being declared unconstitutional when framed as violating Fundamental Rights.
This Schedule acted as a “constitutional safe house,” permitting the state to adopt welfare-oriented legislation that courts might later invalidate as violating Articles 14, 19, and 31.
Landmark Judgements related to Article 31B-
Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
- Established the Basic Structure Doctrine – the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is not unlimited, and Parliament cannot amend the Constitution to alter the Basic Structure.
Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981):
- Upheld the constitutionality of laws placed in the Ninth Schedule before 24 April 1973 (the date of the Keshavananda Bharati decision).
- Declared that laws inserted after 1973 would be subject to review by the courts to verify whether they violate the Basic Structure.
I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007):
- Reiterated the holding that “judicial review” is a Basic Structure feature of the Constitution.
- Stated that any law, even if housed in the Ninth Schedule, can be struck down if it hurts or destroys Fundamental Rights set out in Articles 14, 15, 19, 21 or if it hurts or destroys the Basic Structure.
Comparison Between Article 31A and 31B-
| Basis | Article 31A | Article 31B |
|---|---|---|
| Protection Scope | Five categories of laws (mainly land and property-related) | Any law inserted into the Ninth Schedule |
| Rights Protected Against | Articles 14 & 19 | All Fundamental Rights |
| Process | One-step: State law requires President’s assent | Two-step: Law enacted + added to Ninth Schedule by Parliament |
| Purpose | Protects socialist and agrarian reform laws | Grants broad immunity from Fundamental Rights violation claims |
| Judicial Check | Limited | Subject to Basic Structure test post-1973 (Waman Rao, I.R. Coelho) |
The Ninth Schedule, which was originally intended for land reform laws, today encompasses more than 280 laws, many of which do not pertain to agrarian reform. Critics contend that it has been politically abused to shelter arbitrary legislation from judicial review.
Still, the judiciary persuasively argues that a law cannot escape scrutiny if it runs afoul of the essential values of the Constitution — equality, liberty, and rule of law.
Article 31C — Reconciling Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles
Inserted by: 25th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971
Objective: To ensure that laws giving effect to the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) under Article 39(b) and c could not be invalidated merely for violating Articles 14 (Equality) or 19 (Freedom).
The amendment signified the State’s deepening commitment to a socialist transformation — emphasizing collective welfare over individual liberties.
Evolution By Landmark Judgments:
Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973):
- Affirmed the primacy of Articles 39(b) & (c) over Articles 14 and 19. However, negated a complete bar to judicial review, as it was part of the Basic Structure.
- 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976: Extended Article 31C’s immunity to all DPSPs, not just 39(b) and 39(c). This effectively provided the State unrestrained powers — more or less negating Fundamental Rights.
Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980):
- Declared unconstitutional the extension of the 42nd Amendment.
- Reemphasized that there is a balance of the Constitution between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, neither is superior to the other.
Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra (2022):
- Reinstated the limited validity of Article 31C – applicable only to the enactments of Articles 39(b) and 39(c).
- Clarified that not all private property is a “material resource of the community”.
- Emphasized the need for balanced linkage between public welfare versus private investment, and based on socialist values as linked to the current economy.
| Article | Inserted By | Purpose | Protected Against | Judicial Limitation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 31A | 1st CAA (1951) | Protects land and property reform laws | Articles 14 & 19 | Must serve public purpose; needs Presidential assent |
| 31B | 1st CAA (1951) + Ninth Schedule | Shields specific laws from FR challenges | All Fundamental Rights | Subject to Basic Structure test (post-1973) |
| 31C | 25th CAA (1971) | Gives primacy to 39(b) & (c) DPSPs over 14 & 19 | Articles 14 & 19 | Judicial review remains; limited to 39(b), (c) after Minerva Mills |
The Constitutional Philosophy of Rights and Reforms
Articles 31A, 31B and 31C were inserted into the Constitution to insulate the laws regarding land reform and laws in the public interest from being struck down by the courts — while also maintaining a democratic structure
Socialism within a Democracy: After Independence, India was intent on providing equality through land reform and social welfare schemes. Consequently, Articles 31A–31C were added to allow such laws to be insulated from any legal challenges on the basis of Fundamental Rights.
The Balance between Parliament and Judiciary: These Articles cement power in Parliament to enact reform legislation while maintaining the Basic Structure Doctrine to ensure Parliament does not abuse that power by enacting laws that abolish core rights.
The Interconnectedness of Liberty and Justice: Together, they demonstrate that the Constitution provides for evolution and growth of the Legal Order to balance individual liberty with the welfare of society.
Relevance to UPSC
Prelims
You will be expected to be familiar with factual and concept-based questions such as:
- Match-the-Article (e.g. 31A- Land Reforms, 31B- Ninth Schedule, 31C- link to DPSPs).
- Ninth Schedule features, Judicial Review or Basic Structure Doctrine.
- Landmark cases (e.g. Kesavananda Bharati (1973), Minerva Mills (1980)).
Mains (GS Paper 2)
Relevant with respect to: Topic: “Constitutional Amendments and Judicial Review”.
Themes:
- Harmony between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.
- Evolution of Right to Property (from Fundamental Right to Legal Right).
Previous Year UPSC Questions
| Year | Question |
|---|---|
| 2013 (Prelims) | What was the object of adding the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution of India? |
| 2018 (Mains, GS-2) | Examine the relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles with reference to Minerva Mills judgment. |
| 2020 (Prelims) | Consider the following statements about the Ninth Schedule… (regarding Fundamental Rights protection and Judicial Review). |
These questions test understanding of why and how the Ninth Schedule and related Articles protect reform laws.
Conclusion: The Constantly Displaced Equilibrium
Articles 31A, 31B, and 31C, together create an constitutional triangle:
- 31A → Protects the agrarian and land reforms.
- 31B → Extends protection to laws in the Ninth Schedule.
- 31C → Provides priority to DPSPs come to the Fundamental Rights (to an extent).
They both guarantee:
- No absolute power to the State – as the courts can always review.
- No unchecked liberty to individuals – as we advance societal welfare amongst anything else.
India continues to develop, but this balance between freedom and equality continues to define and uphold the soul of our Constitution.
FAQs
The Articles were added to protect certain land reform and social welfare laws from being invalidated by a court based on Fundamental Rights, primarily the Right to Property.
They represent India’s progression towards a Consitution that is socialism / welfare oriented.
The Ninth Schedule (generally included in First Amendment, 1951) was includes protection from being evaluate under judicial review for unconstitutionality. In other words, Courts do not have the right to strike down laws on the basis of Fundamental Rights as violation.
In the case of I.R. Coelho vs State of Tamil Nadu (2007), the Supreme Court ruled that even laws within the Ninth Schedule can be the subject of judicial review if they violate the Basic Structure of the Constitution
These Articles attempt to harmonize individual rights (Part III) with social and economic objectives (Part IV). In particular, they protect reform policies intended to bring about equality and welfare from being challenged purely on the basis of some individual rights.
The significance of the Basic Structure Doctrine (Kesavananda Bharati, 1973) is that it allows Parliament to amend the Constitution, but not to destroy its core principles. In other words, Article 31A-31C provide protections for these reforms, but the courts are tasked with ensuring they do not violate judicial review, or democracy or rule of law.
