Article 31B

Article 31B of the Constitution of India is a significant provision that ensures the protection and validation of specific laws from being declared void on the grounds of inconsistency with Fundamental Rights. It serves as a constitutional safeguard for social and economic reform legislation, particularly those placed under the Ninth Schedule, thus reinforcing India’s commitment to socio-economic justice and equitable development.

Historical Background and Context

Article 31B was introduced by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, alongside Article 31A and the creation of the Ninth Schedule. This amendment came in response to a series of judicial decisions that struck down land reform laws for violating property and equality rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution.
The framers of the amendment intended to immunise such progressive legislation from judicial review, ensuring that agrarian reforms and socio-economic restructuring could proceed unhindered in pursuit of the Directive Principles of State Policy, particularly those under Articles 38 and 39.

Text and Key Provisions

Article 31B provides that:“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 Acts, Regulations or provisions are inconsistent with, or take away or abridge any of the rights conferred by, any provisions of this Part, 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.”
The main features of Article 31B can be summarised as follows:

• Validation of Laws: Any law or regulation included in the Ninth Schedule is protected from being declared unconstitutional, even if it contravenes Fundamental Rights.
• Judicial Immunity: Such laws are immune from judicial review on the grounds of violation of Fundamental Rights.
• Legislative Power: The competent Legislature retains the power to repeal or amend any law listed in the Ninth Schedule.
• Retrospective Effect: The protection applies retrospectively, meaning that even laws previously invalidated by the courts are deemed valid once placed in the Ninth Schedule.

The Ninth Schedule

The Ninth Schedule was created simultaneously with Article 31B to list the laws receiving constitutional immunity. Initially, it contained 13 Acts, mainly concerning land reforms and agrarian restructuring. Over time, it expanded to include various other laws, covering subjects such as industry, taxation, and social welfare.
By the late twentieth century, the Ninth Schedule had grown to include more than 280 laws, some of which were unrelated to land reform. This expansion led to significant judicial scrutiny and constitutional debate regarding the limits of legislative power.

Judicial Interpretation and Landmark Judgments

The Supreme Court of India has played a crucial role in interpreting the scope and constitutional validity of Article 31B.

• Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951):The Court upheld the First Amendment, ruling that the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution extended to modifying Fundamental Rights. Thus, laws placed in the Ninth Schedule were valid.
• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973):This landmark judgment established the Basic Structure Doctrine, holding that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its basic structure. The Court ruled that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule before 24 April 1973 (the date of the judgment) would enjoy full protection, but any laws added thereafter could be reviewed if they damaged the basic structure.
• Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980):The Court reinforced that the amending power under Article 368 is not unlimited and that no amendment can destroy or damage the essential features of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
• Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981):The Supreme Court drew a clear distinction between pre- and post-Kesavananda laws. It held that laws added to the Ninth Schedule before 24 April 1973 were beyond judicial scrutiny, while those added after that date were open to review if they violated the basic structure.
• I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007):This unanimous nine-judge bench judgment reaffirmed that all laws inserted into the Ninth Schedule after April 1973 are subject to judicial review. If any such law infringes upon Fundamental Rights forming part of the basic structure, it can be declared unconstitutional.

Through these cases, the judiciary ensured that while Article 31B continues to protect socio-economic reforms, it cannot be misused to shield arbitrary or unconstitutional legislation.

Relationship with Article 31A and Other Provisions

• Article 31A: Protects laws relating to land reform and property acquisition from being invalidated for violating Fundamental Rights.
• Article 13: Normally invalidates laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights; Article 31B provides an exception to this principle for specified laws.
• Article 368: Empowers Parliament to amend the Constitution, which includes adding laws to the Ninth Schedule.

Together, Articles 31A and 31B, along with the Ninth Schedule, were designed to ensure that Directive Principles of State Policy could be effectively implemented, particularly in areas of economic redistribution and land reform.

Significance of Article 31B

Article 31B serves as a constitutional shield for legislation intended to achieve social and economic justice. Its major contributions include:

• Facilitating Agrarian Reforms: Enabled the abolition of the zamindari system and equitable distribution of land.
• Ensuring Socio-Economic Equity: Provided legal certainty for laws aimed at uplifting disadvantaged groups and promoting social welfare.
• Empowering the Legislature: Allowed Parliament and state legislatures to pursue reform measures without fear of judicial invalidation.
• Balancing Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles: Helped reconcile individual rights with collective welfare objectives.

Controversies and Criticism

Despite its importance, Article 31B has faced criticism for potential misuse:

• Bypassing Judicial Review: Critics argue that indiscriminate inclusion of laws in the Ninth Schedule undermines the judiciary’s role as guardian of Fundamental Rights.
• Expansion Beyond Land Reforms: The Ninth Schedule, originally intended for agrarian legislation, has been used to shield unrelated laws, including those concerning industry and taxation.
• Constitutional Imbalance: Excessive protection of laws can tilt the balance between legislative authority and judicial oversight, affecting the basic structure of the Constitution.

The judiciary’s subsequent rulings, especially in I.R. Coelho (2007), addressed these concerns by reaffirming that judicial review is a core element of the Constitution’s basic structure and cannot be abrogated.

Contemporary Relevance

Article 31B remains a cornerstone in the debate between social reform and constitutional supremacy. While it continues to protect crucial welfare-oriented laws, the judiciary’s interpretations ensure that it does not become a tool for circumventing constitutional principles.