31B.Validation of certain Acts and Regulations:

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 Act, Regulation or provision is inconsistent with, or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by any provisions of this Part and notwithstanding any judgement, 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.

31C.Saving of laws giving effect to certain directive principles:

Now law shall be deemed to be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with Part IV, or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by Article 14 or Article 19.

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.

COMMENTS

Article 31A was a part of Article 31 (Right to property) before Article 31 was repealed by the Constitution Forty Fourth Amendment, 1978 and was made a Constitutional right in new Article 300A. The fundamental right to property conferred by Article 31, had been modified six times since the commencement of the Constitution. The 1st Amendment added two explanatory Articles.

Articles 31A and 31B to the Constitution, the 4th Amendment amended Clause (2) of Article, added Clause (2-A), inserted new provisions in Article 31A, 17th Amendment further 6 enlarged the definition of “estate” in clause (2) of Article 31A(a), and the 25th Amendment amended Article 31(2), added clause (2B) and added a new Article 31C.

The 4th Amendment established State’s power of eminent domain subject to certain restrictions. The power of eminent domain is an essential attribute of sovereignty which means that king can do no wrong. This power connotes the legal capacity of the State to take private property of individuals for public purposes. This power is subject to three limitations-

(1) There must be a law authorising the taking of property,

(2) The property must be taken for some public use,

(3) Just compensation should be paid.

The above principles guide the implementation under Article 31A in the present form and in Jammu and Kashmir, Article 31 still holds the field. In the case of Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Act, 1988, the Supreme Court has held that the vesting management, administration and governance of the Shrine and Shrine Fund in Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board and extinguishment of right of Baridars does not amount to acquisition of property under Article 31(2). It fell within the ambit of Article 31(2A). Therefore, the Baridars were not entitled to any compensation.

However, it was felt necessary that land reform legislations cannot achieve their purpose unless they are immune from invasion of counter – rights under any of Articles, under Part III and they are given protection for assessment of compensation. Otherwise, no purpose will be served to bring these welfare legislations in use. Thirdly, they have to be protected by umbrella of Schedule of the Constitution of India under Article 31B. By 17th Constitution Amendment, the definition of estate was elaborated so that land reform legislations may not be struck down on technical grounds.

Similarly, to overcome the ruling of market value of compensation in Bela Banerjee case, 25th Constitution Amendment was passed by Parliament as State governments were unable to pay market value of compensation for ceiling surplus land and was rightly so because the erstwhile landlords or by landowners possessed these lands as the system was functioning in their favour and concentration of properties or wealth less the landed properties cannot be allowed to be in few hands. Lands belong to the earth and are held in trust of the society. Secondly, in Golak Nath case, the Supreme Court reversing its earlier decisions in Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh’s cases held that Parliament had no power to abridge or abrogate the fundamental rights.

This reversed position was again reconsidered by the Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharti case, which finally decided in full judges’ bench by 7:6 majority that (a) the power of amendment is limited. It does not enable Parliament to alter the basic structure or framework of the Constitution; and (b) the substantive provision of Article 31C which abrogates the fundamental rights is valid on the ground that it does not alter the basic structure or framework of the Constitution and (c). But the latter part of Article 31C, which ousts the jurisdiction of the Court is invalid.

Thus, judicial review was held as the one of the basic features of the Constitution. It was further held that the Directive Principles of social justice are placed above individual rights and whenever or wherever it is considered necessary, individual rights can be subordinated or cut down to give effect to the principles of social justice as enshrined in the Directive Principles of the State policy.

To set the controversy at rest and allow government to undertake social welfare measures for social justice, the right to property from the chapter on fundamental rights was taken away and was made a constitutional right under Article 300 A by deleting Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31.