The nine-judge Bench will also settle the position on Article 31C of the Indian Constitution, which protects laws enacted to secure the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) laid down in Part IV of the Constitution. The last iteration of Article 31C stated:
“Notwithstanding anything contained in Article 13, no law giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing all or any of the principles laid down in Part IV shall be deemed to be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with, or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by Article 14 or Article 19 and 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:
Provided that where such law is made by the Legislature of a State, the provisions of this article shall not apply thereto unless such law, having been reserved for the consideration of the President, has received his assent.”
By way of background, Article 31C was enacted by the 25th Amendment to the Constitution in 1971. It served to secure the DPSPs specified in clauses (b) and (c) of Article 39. The 25th Amendment was challenged in the famous Kesavananda Bharati case, in which a thirteen-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that the Constitution has a basic structure that cannot be altered by way of a constitutional amendment. The Court also struck down the last part of the provision – “…and 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.”
Article 31C was later amended by the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution, enacted during the Emergency, to give precedence to all DPSPs and not just those under Article 39(b) and (c).
In 1980, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court had in Minerva Mills v. Union of India struck down clauses of the 42nd Amendment that gave effect to the change to Article 31C.
Source: Barandbench
