Article 31-A to 31-C

Article 31-A to 31-C

1. Articles 31A - 31C

2. ARTICLE 31 This article says that from no person their property will be taken until there is an authority of law and if it is done then they will be recompensed. Article 31(1) gave the legal authority a permission to take away the property . Article 31(2) mentioned the word compensation without any adjective which made it very arbitrary as in how much compensation would be given After all this chaos, the 44th amendment declared Article 31 along with Article 19(1)(g) as void. Article 31(1) was moved to Article 300A which rendered right to property only as a constitutional right .

3. Doctrine of Eminent Domain This Doctrine says that the government may take any land holding without the owner’s opinion and just give him the compensation for it.

4. SAVING OF LAWS PROVIDING FOR ACQUISITION OF ESTATE- ARTICLE 31A During pre-independence where zamindari system was prevalent, the landlords became very wealthy whereas the condition of the peasants got deteriorated. Then the government decided to take away land holdings from the zamindars. The main problem that arose was to give compensation. So Article 31A was introduced which says that any law made in regarding the acquisition of any estate or right by the government or management of any property and thus modifying the managing rights, create merger of any two or more companies or receiving the benefit of any agreement or lease or license; will not be void or null until it has not received the assent of the president.

5. VALIDATION OF CERTAIN ACTS AND REGULATIONS- ARTICLE 31B In this Article it was ruled out that if any Act present in the ninth schedule is inconsistent with the provisions or which resist any decree or order, will be left on the competent authority to decide if it will continue to in force or will be void. Anything contained in this Article will not undermine anything contained in Article 31A. This Article provides blanket protection to the laws contained in the XI schedule. It has retrospective effect.

6. SAVING OF LAWS GIVING EFFECT TO CERTAIN DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES - ARTICLE 31C Article 31C was introduced by the 25th Amendment Act. This Article talks about the rights contained in Part IV of the constitution, the DPSP. It says that any law made by the state which is against Article 14, 19 and 31,can’t be made void. This law made by the state should receive the assent of the President. It also says that any law made by the state can’t be made void if it gives effect to any law contained in Article 39B and Article 39C.

7. SOME RELATED CASES KESVANANDA BHARTI V. STATE OF KERALA It was ruled out in this case, that any law made which is violative of the fundamental rights under Article 368. Constitution can amend these rights only to the extent that it does not hinder the basic structure. MINERVA MILLS LTD. V. UNION OF INDIA In this case, the extended portion of the Article 31C was radicated because it was violating the fundamental rights and also this part was securing DPSP above fundamental rights which should not be done as these rights are paramount.

8. 9th SCHEDULE LAWS NOT BEYOND JUDICIAL REVIEW Property acts have seen many changes in the past until it was finally repealed with Article 31(2) been shifted to article 300A which rendered the property right as a constitutional right which previously was a fundamental right. Any law that is in the IX Schedule is kept out of judicial review which is very whimsical considering that any law no matter how arbitrary will be put by the government in the ninth Schedule. This was the scenario until the case IR Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, which ruled out that the laws in the ninth Schedule have to go through the test of basic structure.

9. CONCLUSION From the very 1st Amendment in 1951 to the 124th Amendment in 2019, the Constitution has been amending its way to the doorway of betterment. The right to property has faced many criticism until it became just a constitutional right. It was later on understood that DPSP has to be secured but for that the fundamental rights should not be abrogated, rather they have to be companions of each other. Well, there is a lot more to be realized and worked on.