Limitations on Fundamental Rights

How Articles 31A, 31B and 31C shield some laws from Part III, how Article 335 balances efficiency and reservation, and how an Emergency affects rights under Articles 358 and 359

Scope: Express limits in the Constitution's text: Articles 31A, 31B, 31C, 335, 358 and 359. The general doctrines of Article 13 are covered in their own note and are only summarised here.

In one minute

Fundamental Rights are not absolute. Articles 31A, 31B and 31C shield certain laws, mainly land reform and social-justice laws, from challenge under some Part III rights. Article 335 asks the State to consider Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe claims to jobs without harming efficiency. Articles 358 and 359 cut down rights during an Emergency.

Exams ask how far each shield goes and what the courts have cut back. Name I.R. Coelho for Article 31B, Minerva Mills for Article 31C and ADM Jabalpur for Article 359.

Exam focus

Frequency: No data
Usually asked as: No data

Legal provision

Article 31A(1): five kinds of law are not void for conflict with Article 14 or Article 19. They are laws for acquiring an estate, taking over property management for a limited time, amalgamating corporations, changing the rights of managing agents, directors or shareholders, and changing mining leases. A State law needs the President's assent.
Article 31B: no Act in the Ninth Schedule is void because it conflicts with any Part III right. This holds despite any court judgment, subject to the power of a Legislature to amend or repeal it.
Article 31C: a law giving effect to the principles in Article 39(b) or (c) is not void for conflict with Article 14 or Article 19. A State law needs the President's assent.
Article 335: the claims of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes shall be considered in appointments, consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration. A proviso allows relaxation in qualifying marks, lower standards of evaluation and reservation in promotion.
Article 358: during an Emergency for war or external aggression, Article 19 does not restrict the State's power to make laws or act.
Article 359: during a Proclamation of Emergency, the President may suspend the right to move a court to enforce Part III rights named in the order. Articles 20 and 21 cannot be named.
Article 352(1): an Emergency can be proclaimed if the security of India is threatened by war, external aggression or armed rebellion.
Articles 33 and 34: Parliament may restrict Part III rights of the armed forces and similar forces. It may also indemnify acts done while martial law is in force.

Meaning and definition

Each of these Articles takes a class of laws or a period of time out of the full reach of Part III. They show that the Constitution itself limits Fundamental Rights. The courts have asked a second question: can a shield be used to destroy the Constitution's basic structure?

Article	Which laws are shielded	From which rights
31A	Estate acquisition and four other classes	Articles 14 and 19
31B	Acts in the Ninth Schedule	All of Part III
31C	Laws giving effect to Article 39(b) or (c)	Articles 14 and 19

Is a Ninth Schedule law protected after I.R. Coelho?How to read this: go down the boxes in order. A "No" answer sends you to the result beside the box.

1. Was the law put in the Ninth Schedule on or after 24 April 1973? Kesavananda Bharati date
No: it keeps the protection of Article 31B.
2. Does it take away or abridge a Part III right? Article 31B
No: there is nothing to strike down.
3. Does that damage the basic structure, tested through Article 21 read with Articles 14 and 19? I.R. Coelho
No: the law stands.
Yes: the law is invalid despite the Ninth Schedule.

Detailed explanation

Step 1: why the shields were made

After 1950, States passed laws to abolish zamindari and redistribute land. Landowners challenged them under Articles 14, 19 and the old Article 31. Courts differed. The Patna High Court struck down a Bihar law while other High Courts upheld similar laws. Parliament answered with the First Amendment in 1951, which inserted Articles 31A and 31B, with effect from 18 June 1951 for Article 31B.

Step 2: Article 31A

The Fourth Amendment (1955) recast clause (1), which now lists five classes. The Seventeenth Amendment (20 June 1964) added a proviso on land held by a person for personal cultivation within the ceiling limit. The State must pay at least market value for such land. The Seventeenth Amendment also widened the meaning of estate. The 44th Amendment (20 June 1979) removed Article 31 from the list of protected rights, since Article 31 was omitted.

Example. A State takes over a zamindar's estate and ends his rights. The law has the President's assent. A landowner cannot challenge it as a breach of Article 14 or 19.

Step 3: can Parliament amend Part III?

In Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India (1951), a five-Judge Bench upheld the First Amendment. It held that an amendment under Article 368 is not "law" under Article 13(2). In I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967), eleven Judges reversed this by 6:5. The majority held that Parliament could not abridge Part III. Using prospective overruling, they said earlier amendments, including the Seventeenth, were not affected. The 24th Amendment then added Article 13(4). In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), thirteen Judges wrote eleven opinions. Several held that Parliament may amend Part III but may not destroy the basic structure.

Step 4: Article 31B and the Ninth Schedule

The First Amendment created a Ninth Schedule of thirteen land reform laws. Later amendments raised the entries to 284 by the 78th Amendment (1995), many unrelated to land reform. Article 31B gave blanket immunity to every law listed.

In I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007), a nine-Judge Bench under Sabharwal, C.J.I. heard challenges to two laws put in the Schedule after the Court had struck them down. It held that Article 31B does not give absolute protection after 24 April 1973, the date of Kesavananda Bharati. Such a law is open to challenge if it damages the basic structure. The Court applies the direct impact and effect test, with Article 21 read with Articles 14 and 19. A law already upheld by the Court is not reopened. Actions already taken stay protected. Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981) had earlier fixed the same date.

Step 5: Article 31C

The 25th Amendment inserted Article 31C (20 April 1972). It protected laws giving effect to Article 39(b) and (c): control of material resources for the common good, and no concentration of wealth. The Article also said a law with a declaration that it gives effect to such policy could not be questioned in court. The Constitution text notes that these declaration words were struck down in Kesavananda Bharati.

The 42nd Amendment (3 January 1977) widened Article 31C to cover all principles in Part IV. In Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980), a five-Judge Bench decided the challenge. Four Judges held that section 4 (Article 31C) and section 55 (clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368) were void for damaging the basic structure. Bhagwati, J. agreed that section 55 was void but upheld section 4. The majority said that unamended Article 31C is valid to the extent upheld in Kesavananda Bharati. So Article 31C today protects only Article 39(b) and (c) laws.

Step 6: Article 335

Article 335 uses the words "consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration". The 82nd Amendment (8 September 2000) added a proviso that allows relaxation of qualifying marks, lower standards of evaluation and reservation in promotion.

In State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (1975, reported 1976), Kerala gave Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe clerks extra time to pass a promotion test. A seven-Judge Bench upheld the rule by 5:2, with Khanna and Gupta, JJ. dissenting. The majority held that Article 16(1) does not demand a rigid, formal equality. It also held that extra time does not harm efficiency, since the test itself did not change.

After Indra Sawhney v. Union of India barred reservation in promotion, Parliament added Article 16(4A), Article 16(4B) and the Article 335 proviso. In M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, the Court held these amendments valid as enabling provisions, subject to data on backwardness and the 50 per cent ceiling.

Step 7: Articles 358 and 359

Article 358 suspends the restriction in Article 19 automatically. It applies only when the Emergency is for war or external aggression. A law made under it must state that it relates to the Emergency, and it lapses when the Proclamation ends. Article 359 needs a Presidential order. It suspends the right to move a court, not the right itself, for the rights named. Both changes, and the bar on naming Articles 20 and 21, came from the 44th Amendment (20 June 1979). The 44th Amendment also replaced "internal disturbance" in Article 352 with "armed rebellion".

In Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (Habeas Corpus Case) (1976), the Emergency had been proclaimed on 25 June 1975 on the ground of internal disturbance. On 27 June 1975, the President suspended the right to move any court to enforce Articles 14, 21 and 22. The detainees filed habeas corpus petitions. A 4:1 Bench held that no petition could be heard while the order suspended Article 21. Khanna, J. alone dissented. He held that personal liberty exists without Article 21 and that Article 359 suspends only the remedy. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (Right to Privacy Case) later declared the majority wrong.

Example. An Emergency is proclaimed because of armed rebellion in a region. Article 358 does not apply, so Article 19 stays. The President may suspend the right to move a court for Article 14 and Article 22, but not for Article 20 or Article 21.

Step 8: other limits in Part III

Articles 33 and 34 allow special rules for the armed forces and for martial law. The general doctrines that limit rights, such as the doctrine of eclipse, the doctrine of severability and waiver, follow from Article 13. Rights under Article 19 are also subject to reasonable restrictions.

Don't confuse: Article 358 and Article 359

Point	Article 358	Article 359
How it works	Automatic while the Proclamation lasts	Needs a Presidential order
Rights affected	Article 19 only	Rights named in the order, except Articles 20 and 21
When	War or external aggression only	Any Emergency (war, external aggression, armed rebellion)
What is suspended	The restriction of Article 19 on the State	The right to move a court to enforce the named rights

Under Article 358. In a war Emergency, a law restricting speech does not have to meet Article 19(2), if it says it relates to the Emergency.

Under Article 359. The President orders that no court may be moved to enforce Article 14. A person denied equality cannot sue for it while the order lasts.

Common mistakes

Saying Article 31A protects a law from all Part III rights. It covers only Articles 14 and 19.
Saying a Ninth Schedule law is beyond review. After 24 April 1973 it can be tested on the basic structure.
Saying Minerva Mills struck down all of Article 31C. It struck down the 42nd Amendment's widening.
Saying Article 358 applies in every Emergency. It applies only to war or external aggression.
Saying Article 359 can suspend Article 21. It cannot.
Saying Bhagwati, J. dissented in Minerva Mills on Article 368. He agreed on that and dissented on Article 31C.

Apply it

Problem

In 2026 Parliament passes a land-ceiling law and places it in the Ninth Schedule. Landowners say it arbitrarily takes their land and breaches Article 14. Is the law beyond challenge?

Issue. Does Article 31B protect the law?

Rule. A law added to the Ninth Schedule on or after 24 April 1973 is open to challenge. It fails if it takes away a Part III right and damages the basic structure (I.R. Coelho).

Application. The insertion is after 1973. The landowners must first show a breach of Article 14. They must then show that it damages the basic structure, tested through Article 21 with Articles 14 and 19.

Conclusion. Placing the law in the Schedule does not by itself protect it. Its validity turns on the two-step test.

Leading case laws

Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India (1951)
Facts. Zamindars challenged the First Amendment, which inserted Articles 31A and 31B.

Principle. An amendment under Article 368 is not "law" under Article 13(2).

Why it matters. It upheld the first shields, until Golak Nath reversed it.
I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967)
Facts. A challenge to land laws protected by the Seventeenth Amendment.

Principle. By 6:5, Parliament cannot abridge Part III. Earlier amendments were saved by prospective overruling.

Why it matters. It led to the 24th Amendment and Kesavananda Bharati.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
Facts. A challenge to the 24th, 25th and 29th Amendments.

Principle. Several opinions hold that Parliament may amend Part III but not destroy the basic structure. The declaration words of Article 31C were struck down.

Why it matters. It is the source of the 24 April 1973 date.
Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980)
Facts. A challenge to the 42nd Amendment's changes to Article 31C and Article 368.

Principle. Four Judges struck down both changes. Bhagwati, J. upheld the change to Article 31C.

Why it matters. Article 31C today covers Article 39(b) and (c) laws only.
I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007)
Facts. Two laws put in the Ninth Schedule after being struck down.

Principle. Laws added on or after 24 April 1973 can be struck down for damaging the basic structure.

Why it matters. It ended blanket immunity under Article 31B.
State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (1976)
Facts. Extra time for Scheduled Caste and Tribe clerks to pass a promotion test.

Principle. By 5:2, upheld. Equality of opportunity is not rigid. Efficiency under Article 335 was not harmed.

Why it matters. It is the main case on Article 335.
Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (Habeas Corpus Case) (1976)
Facts. Detainees held in the 1975 Emergency sought habeas corpus.

Principle. By 4:1, no petition could be heard while Article 21 was suspended. Khanna, J. dissented.

Why it matters. The 44th Amendment barred Article 359 orders on Articles 20 and 21.

How to write this answer in the exam

5-mark answer (Ninth Schedule)

State Article 31B and the Ninth Schedule.
Give the First Amendment and the growth to 284 entries.
State I.R. Coelho and the 24 April 1973 date.
Give the two-step test.

10-mark answer

Why the shields were made.
Articles 31A, 31B, 31C with the amendments.
Shankari Prasad, Golak Nath, Kesavananda Bharati.
I.R. Coelho and Minerva Mills.
Article 335 and N.M. Thomas; Articles 358 and 359 and ADM Jabalpur.
Conclusion: the basic structure limits every shield.

Key points to remember

Article 31A protects five classes of law from Articles 14 and 19.
Article 31B protects Ninth Schedule laws, but those added on or after 24 April 1973 can be tested on the basic structure (I.R. Coelho, 2007).
Article 31C covers only Article 39(b) and (c) laws; the 42nd Amendment's widening was struck down (Minerva Mills, 1980).
Article 335: efficiency of administration; the proviso came from the 82nd Amendment.
Article 358: automatic, Article 19 only, war or external aggression only.
Article 359: Presidential order; never Articles 20 and 21.
ADM Jabalpur (1976) is the cautionary case.

Quick self-test

1. From which rights does Article 31A shield a law?

Articles 14 and 19.

2. What did I.R. Coelho say about the Ninth Schedule?

Laws added on or after 24 April 1973 can be struck down if they damage the basic structure.

3. Which Emergency grounds trigger Article 358?

War or external aggression only.