Directive Principle of State Policy: India

Select Language Afrikaans Albanian Arabic Armenian Azerbaijani Basque Belarusian Bulgarian Bengali Catalan Chinese (Simplified) Chinese (Traditional) Croatian Czech Danish Dutch English Estonian Filipino Finnish French Galician Georgian German Greek Gujarati Haitian Creole Hebrew Hindi Hungarian Icelandic Indonesian Irish Italian Japanese Javanese Kannada Khmer Korean Latvian Lithuanian Macedonian Malay Maltese Marathi Nepali Norwegian Persian Polish Portuguese Punjabi Romanian Russian Serbian Slovak Slovenian Spanish Swahili Swedish Tamil Telugu Thai Turkish Ukrainian Urdu Vietnamese Welsh Yiddish

This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content. Additional information may please be sent as messages to the Facebook community, Indpaedia.com. All information used will be gratefully acknowledged in your name.

Art 31C on Directive Principles continues to hold good: SC, 2024

Dhananjay Mahapatra, Nov 6, 2024: The Times of India

New Delhi : The Supreme Court’s nine-judge bench led by CJI D Y Chandrachud unanimously ruled that Article 31C of the Constitution, which presumed legality of legislation giving effect to Directive Principles of State Policy, and which was partly validated by the SC’s 13-judge bench in Kesavananda Bharati case, continues to hold good. 
 The bench said the SC’s 1980 Minerva Mills judgment, which struck down Section 4 of the Emergency-era 42nd amendment changing the contours of Article 31C, would not altogether obliterate the provision, although the constitutionality of specific laws enacted to give effect to it could be subjected to judicial scrutiny.


The original text of Article 31C, which was inserted in the Constitution in 1971 through the 25th constitutional amendment, said no law giving effect to Directive Principles of State Policy, as specified in clauses (b) and (c) of Article 39, “shall be deemed to be void on the ground that it breached Articles 14 (equality) and 19 (free speech)”. Kesavananda Bharati judgment upheld this part of Art 31C.


However, it had struck down the second part of Article 31C, which said 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.


Through the 42nd amendment, Parliament had amended Article 31C to expand its scope much beyond clauses (b) and (c) of Article 39 and in its place incorporated “all or any principle laid down in Part IV – Directive Principles”. Minerva Mills judgment struck down this amendment restoring the shape of Article 31C to a position existing after the Kesavananda judgment.


The question before the nine-judge bench was: “Whether Article 31C (as upheld in Kesavananda Bharati) survives in the Constitution after the amendment to the provision by the 42nd amendment was struck down by this court in Minerva Mills?”


Writing the majority opin- ion, the CJI said Parliament through 42nd amendment had intended to expand the immunity to laws incorporating provisions of directive principles and that it cannot be suggested that Parliament would have repealed the words “the principles specified in clause (b) or clause (c) of Article 39” as originally existed in Article 31C.
 “After Minerva Mills invalidated Section 4 of the 42nd amendment, the composite legal effect of Section 4 is nullified and the unamended text of Article 31C stands revived,” the bench said.


“The text of the unamended Article 31C was challenged, and the first part of the Article was upheld by 13-judge decision in Kesavananda Bharati while the latter half of the Article was invalidated. Therefore, the first half of unamended Article 31C, which is the subject matter of the present controversy, was undoubtedly constitutional… We conclude that unamended Article 31C continues in force,” it said.