11. Saving of Certain Laws — Articles 31A, 31B and 31C
This is the 11th post in Constitutional Law-I, Unit 4 — the previous post covered the general doctrines (severability, eclipse, waiver, reasonable restrictions) that limit Fundamental Rights. This post covers a specific, express set of limitations written directly into the Constitution's text — Articles 31A, 31B, and 31C, which save particular categories of laws from being struck down for violating certain Fundamental Rights.
The Problem This Topic Solves
Soon after Independence, Parliament and State legislatures wanted to carry out sweeping agrarian reform — abolishing the zamindari system, redistributing land, and imposing ceilings on landholding — measures central to the framers' social justice vision embodied in the Directive Principles. But these very reforms inevitably affected property rights and could be challenged as violating Articles 14 and 19 (and, before its repeal, the original right to property under Article 31). Courts striking down reform legislation on these grounds threatened to stall land reform entirely. Parliament's response, through a series of constitutional amendments, was to carve out specific, express exceptions — Articles 31A, 31B, and 31C — insulating defined categories of socially important legislation from challenge on particular Fundamental Rights grounds, while (as later case law clarified) still keeping such laws answerable to the Constitution's basic structure.
Article 31A — Saving of Laws Providing for Acquisition of Estates, etc.
Article 31A, inserted by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, provides that no law providing for the acquisition of an "estate" or of rights therein, or for the extinguishment or modification of such rights (along with several other specified categories, such as taking over management of property in the public interest, and provisions relating to corporations and mining leases) shall be deemed void on the ground that it is inconsistent with, or takes away or abridges, the rights conferred by Article 14 or Article 19. This directly enabled the zamindari-abolition and other agrarian-reform legislation of the early 1950s to proceed without being derailed by Article 14/19 challenges.
Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India (1951)
AIR 1951 SC 458, decided by a Bench of Chief Justice Hiralal J. Kania and Justices M. Patanjali Sastri, B.K. Mukherjea, S.R. Das, and N. Chandrasekhara Aiyar.
Facts: Several zamindars challenged the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 itself, which had inserted the newly created Articles 31A and 31B specifically to protect the Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, and Madhya Pradesh Zamindari Abolition Acts from constitutional challenge. The petitioners argued that the word "law" in Article 13(2) — which voids any law abridging Fundamental Rights — includes constitutional amendments as well, meaning Parliament itself could not use its amending power to insert provisions that curtailed Fundamental Rights.
Holding: The Supreme Court upheld the First Amendment, holding that a constitutional amendment made under Article 368 is not "law" within the meaning of Article 13(2) — Article 13(2) was intended to restrain ordinary legislative power, not Parliament's special constituent power to amend the Constitution itself. Since Articles 31A and 31B were validly introduced through the amending process, they did not need to separately satisfy the ordinary Article 13(2) test that binds regular legislation. The Court also clarified that Articles 31A and 31B did not oust the jurisdiction of the courts altogether — they simply excluded specified categories of legislation from being tested against Articles 14 and 19 specifically.
Article 31B — Validation of Acts and Regulations in the Ninth Schedule
Article 31B, also inserted by the First Amendment, goes further than Article 31A: it provides that any Act or Regulation specified in the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution shall not be deemed void, or ever have become void, on the ground that it is inconsistent with, or takes away or abridges, any of the Fundamental Rights — and this protection applies notwithstanding any court judgment, decree, or order to the contrary. Unlike Article 31A (which protects a defined category of laws wherever enacted), Article 31B protects any law Parliament chooses to place in the Ninth Schedule, which over time grew to include laws far beyond agrarian reform.
I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007)
(2007) 2 SCC 1, decided by a 9-Judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice Y.K. Sabharwal.
Facts: This case questioned the scope of Article 31B's blanket immunity, arising from challenges to laws like the Tamil Nadu Janman Estates Act and the West Bengal Land Holding Revenue Act, 1979, which had been inserted into the Ninth Schedule by later constitutional amendments. The core question, referred to a 9-Judge Bench given its far-reaching implications, was whether Parliament could indefinitely keep expanding the Ninth Schedule and thereby place any law — however much it violated core Fundamental Rights — beyond all judicial review, simply by including it in the Schedule.
Holding: The Supreme Court held that Article 31B's blanket immunity is not itself absolute or beyond the Constitution's basic structure doctrine (established in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, covered earlier in this subject's Unit 2). The Court fixed 24 April 1973 — the date of the Kesavananda Bharati judgment — as the dividing line: laws already placed in the Ninth Schedule before that date remain fully protected and beyond challenge, but any law inserted into the Ninth Schedule after that date is open to judicial review on the ground that it violates the basic structure of the Constitution, including through violation of Fundamental Rights (particularly Articles 14, 19, and 21) that are themselves recognised as forming part of that basic structure. The Court laid down a two-stage test for such post-1973 Ninth Schedule laws: first, whether the law violates specific Fundamental Rights; and if so, second, whether that violation is severe enough to damage or destroy the Constitution's basic structure — only the latter kind of violation would render the law unconstitutional despite its Ninth Schedule placement.
Article 31C — Saving of Laws Giving Effect to Certain Directive Principles
Article 31C, inserted by the 25th Amendment (1971), provides that no law giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing the principles specified in Article 39(b) and (c) of the Directive Principles (distribution of material resources to sub-serve the common good, and preventing concentration of wealth to the common detriment) shall be deemed void on the ground that it is inconsistent with, or takes away or abridges, the rights conferred by Article 14 or Article 19. Article 31C originally also contained a second part declaring that no law containing a declaration that it was for giving effect to such policy could be questioned in any court on the ground that it did not, in fact, give effect to such policy — effectively excluding judicial review of that question altogether. As already discussed in this subject's Unit 2 (in the context of Kesavananda Bharati and Minerva Mills v. Union of India), this second part of Article 31C, which sought to oust judicial review entirely, was struck down as unconstitutional for violating the basic structure — while the first part (the substantive protection for genuine Article 39(b)/(c) laws against Article 14/19 challenge) survives. Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981) further confirmed that Ninth Schedule laws inserted before the Kesavananda Bharati judgment (24 April 1973) retain full Article 31B protection, and Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) struck down the 42nd Amendment's attempt to extend Article 31C's protection to laws implementing any Directive Principle (not just Article 39(b)/(c)), holding that the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles is itself part of the basic structure.
| Article | What It Protects | Key Limiting Case |
|---|---|---|
| 31A | Laws on acquisition of estates, agrarian reform, and related categories — protected from Article 14/19 challenge | Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India (1951) — upheld its constitutional insertion |
| 31B | Any Act/Regulation placed in the Ninth Schedule — protected from any Fundamental Rights challenge | I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) — post-1973 insertions reviewable on basic-structure grounds |
| 31C | Laws genuinely giving effect to Article 39(b)/(c) — protected from Article 14/19 challenge | Kesavananda Bharati / Minerva Mills — struck down the clause ousting judicial review of whether a law truly serves Article 39(b)/(c) |
- Article 31A shields defined categories of agrarian-reform-type legislation from challenge under Articles 14 and 19
- Article 31A/31B were validly inserted by the First Amendment because a constitutional amendment is not "law" under Article 13(2) (Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India, 1951)
- Article 31B protects any law placed in the Ninth Schedule from challenge on any Fundamental Rights ground — but this protection is not unlimited for laws inserted after 24 April 1973, which remain open to challenge if they violate the basic structure (I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2007)
- Article 31C protects genuine Article 39(b)/(c)-implementing laws from Article 14/19 challenge, but the part of Article 31C that tried to bar courts from even examining whether a law genuinely served that purpose was struck down as unconstitutional
- I.R. Coelho's two-stage test (Fundamental Rights violation, then basic-structure damage) is a good illustration of how the basic structure doctrine (from Kesavananda Bharati) operates as an overarching check even on express, textual constitutional provisions like Article 31B — no provision of the Constitution, however clearly worded, is entirely beyond this limit
- These three Articles collectively show a recurring pattern in Indian constitutional history: Parliament creates broad textual immunities for socially significant legislation, and the judiciary, through the basic structure doctrine, ensures those immunities do not become absolute shields against every constitutional check
Looking Ahead — Articles 335, 358, and 359
Having covered Articles 31A, 31B, and 31C, the final post in this unit covers the remaining specific limitation-related provisions in the syllabus — Article 335 (claims of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to services), and Articles 358 and 359 (the effect of a declared Emergency on Fundamental Rights).
A Practical Example
Suppose Parliament enacts a land-ceiling law in 2026 that some landowners argue arbitrarily deprives them of property in violation of Article 14, and Parliament, anticipating litigation, places this law in the Ninth Schedule. Applying the principles above: since the insertion happens well after 24 April 1973, I.R. Coelho allows the landowners to still challenge the law — first by showing it genuinely violates Article 14, and then by showing that this violation is severe enough to damage the Constitution's basic structure. Simply being placed in the Ninth Schedule would not, by itself, insulate the law from this scrutiny, unlike a similar law placed in the Schedule before 1973.
Quick Revision Points
- Article 31A: protects agrarian-reform-type laws from Article 14/19 challenge
- Article 31A/31B validly inserted since constitutional amendments are not "law" under Article 13(2) (Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India, 1951)
- Article 31B: protects Ninth Schedule laws from any Fundamental Rights challenge — but post-24 April 1973 insertions are reviewable on basic-structure grounds via a two-stage test (I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2007)
- Article 31C: protects genuine Article 39(b)/(c)-implementing laws from Article 14/19 challenge; the clause ousting judicial review of whether a law truly serves that purpose was struck down (Kesavananda Bharati/Minerva Mills)
- All three Articles illustrate that even express constitutional immunities remain subject to the basic structure doctrine
© 2026 NyayaSaral