Article 39 & 31C

• Article 39 of the Constitution lists certain directive principles of state policy, which are meant to be guiding principles for the enactment of laws, but are not directly enforceable in any court of law.
• Article 31C protects laws enacted to ensure the material resources of the community are distributed to serve the common good (Article 39(b)) and that wealth and the means of production are not concentrated to the common detriment (Article 39(c).
• Article 31C provides that no law giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing the principles specified in Article 39 (b) Article 39 (c) shall be deemed to be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with, or abridges any of the rights conferred by article 14, article 19 or article 31; 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. Thus this provision saved any such law from judicial review. 

Introduction of Article 31C

• Article 31C was introduced by The Constitution (Twenty-fifth) Amendment Act, 1971. 

The journey of Article 31C

• The 25th amendment was challenged in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) in which the judges held that the Constitution has a “basic structure” that cannot be altered, even by a constitutional amendment.
• As a part of this verdict, the court struck down the portion of Article 31C that precluded judicial review. This empowered the court to examine laws that had been enacted to further Articles 39(b) and 39(c), to determine whether the purpose of those laws actually supported the principles mentioned in these provisions.
• The Constitution (Forty-second) Amendment Act, 1976 expanded the protection under Article 31C to all or any of the principles laid down in Part IV of the Constitution. As a result, every single directive principle (Articles 36-51) was protected from challenges under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.
• In its judgement in Minerva Mills v. Union of India, 1980 the Supreme Court held that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution was limited, and it could not be used to remove these limitations and grant itself unlimited and absolute powers of amendment.