Some Exceptions To The Fundamental Rights

Article 31A protects five types of laws from being challenged and declared invalid on the basis of a violation of Article 14's (equality before the law and equal protection under the law) and Article 19's (equality before the law and equal protection under the law) fundamental rights (protection of six rights in respect of speech, assembly, movement, etc.). They include the following and are related to agricultural land reforms, industry, and commerce:

 

a) The State's acquisition of estates and related rights;

 

b) The government taking over property management;

 

c) Mergers and acquisitions of businesses;

 

(d) The abolition or modification of corporate directors' or shareholders' rights; and

 

Expiration or modification of mining leases (e).

 

When the state acquires land under a person's personal cultivation and the land is within the statutory ceiling limit, this Article also provides for the payment of market value compensation.

 

Article 31B protects the Ninth Schedule's acts and regulations from being challenged and declared invalid on the basis of a violation of any of the fundamental rights. As a result, Article 31B has a broader scope than Article 31A. Article 31B exempts any law listed in the Ninth Schedule from all fundamental rights, regardless of whether the law falls into one of the five categories listed in Article 31A.

 

The Supreme Court, however, ruled in the Kesavananda Bharati case 19 (1973) that the acts and regulations listed in the Ninth Schedule are subject to challenge on the grounds that they violate the Constitution's basic structure.

 

The following two provisions were added to Article 31 C by the 25th Amendment Act of 1971:

 

(a) No law that seeks to implement the socialistic directive principles specified in Article 39(b) or (c) shall be void on the ground of contravention of the fundamental rights conferred by Article 14 (equality before law and equal protection of laws) or Article 19 (protection of six rights in respect of speech, assembly, movement, etc.)

 

(b) No law containing a declaration that it is for giving effect to such policy shall be questioned in any court on the ground that it does not give effect to such a policy.

 

The Supreme Court declared the above second provision of Article 31 C unconstitutional and invalid in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), arguing that judicial review is a fundamental feature of the Constitution that cannot be taken away. The first provision of Article 31C, however, was found to be constitutional and valid.

 

The 42nd Amendment Act (1976) broadened the scope of Article 31 C's first provision by including any law that implements any of the directive principles listed in Part IV of the Constitution, not just those listed in Article 39 (b) or (c) (c). The Supreme Court, however, declared this extension unconstitutional and invalid in the Minerva Mills case 24. (1980).