सं Samvidhan

The Constitution of India

Article 31C

Saving of laws giving effect to certain directive principles

Why this exists

Article 31C was added by the 25th Constitutional Amendment in 1971, during a period when the government wanted to pursue land reforms and economic redistribution (especially under Article 39(b) and (c)) without such laws being struck down for clashing with property or equality rights. The 42nd Amendment (1976), passed during the Emergency, tried to broaden this shield to cover all Directive Principles and to bar courts from even examining whether a law truly served those principles — reflecting a push to prioritize state policy over judicial review.

How courts read it

In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court upheld the core idea of protecting laws implementing Article 39(b)/(c) from Article 14/19 challenges, but struck down the part ousting judicial review entirely, holding that courts must always be able to check if a law genuinely serves that directive principle. Later, in Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), the Court struck down the 42nd Amendment's expansion of Article 31C to 'all' Directive Principles, ruling that this destroyed the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, which is part of the Constitution's 'basic structure.' As a result, only the original, narrower version of Article 31C (tied to Article 39(b) and (c)) remains operative today.

Common misconceptions
  • Myth: Article 31C lets the government pass any law without any court being able to check it.
    Fact: The Supreme Court struck down the part that tried to fully block judicial review; courts can still examine whether a law truly serves the stated Directive Principle.
  • Myth: Article 31C protects laws implementing all Directive Principles in Part IV.
    Fact: The 42nd Amendment's attempt to extend protection to all Directive Principles was struck down in Minerva Mills (1980); only laws relating to Article 39(b) and (c) remain protected.