Constitutional provision:article 31-A, 31-B & 31-C
Art:31-A Constitution of India
[Link] anything contained in article 13, no law providing for
a. the acquisition by the State of any estate or of any rights therein
or the extinguishment or modification of any such rights, or
b. the taking over of the management of any property by the State
for a limited period either in the public interest or in order to
secure the proper management of the property, or
c. the amalgamation of two or more corporations either in the
public interest or in order to secure the proper management of
any of the corporations, or
d. the extinguishment or modification of any rights of managing
agents, secretaries and treasurers, managing directors, directors
or managers of corporations,
e. the extinguishment or modification of any rights accruing by
virtue of any agreement, lease or licence for the purpose of
searching for, or winning, any mineral or mineral oil, or the
premature termination or cancellation of any such agreement,
lease or licence, 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 1 [article 14 or article 19]: Provided that where such
law is a law 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:] [Provided further that where any law makes any
provision for the acquisition by the State of any estate and where
any land comprised therein is held by a person under his personal
cultivation, it shall not be lawful for the State to acquire any
portion of such land as is within the ceiling limit applicable to
him under any law for the time being in force or any building or
structure standing thereon or appurtenant thereto, unless the law
relating to the acquisition of such land, building or structure,
provides for payment of compensation at a rate which shall not
be less than the market value thereof.]
2. In this article,
a. the expression ”estate” shall, in relation to any local area, have
the same meaning as that expression or its local equivalent has in
the existing law relating to land tenures in force in that area and
shall also include—
i. any jagir, inam or muafi or other similar grant and in
the States of 4[Tamil Nadu] and Kerala, any janmam
right;
ii. any land held under ryotwari settlement;
iii. any land held or let for purposes of agriculture or for
purposes ancillary thereto, including waste land, forest
land, land for pasture
or sites of buildings and other structures occupied by
cultivators of land, agricultural labourers and village
artisans;]
b. the expression ”rights”, in relation to an estate, shall include any
rights vesting in a proprietor, sub proprietor, under-proprietor,
tenure-holder, 1 [raiyat, under-raiyat] or other intermediary and
any rights or privileges in respect of land revenue.]
Article 31B – Constitution of India
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 judgment, 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.
Article 31C – Constitution of India
Notwithstanding anything contained in article 13, no law giving effect to the policy of the State
towards securing 4
[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 5 [article 14 or
article 19]; 6 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.
9th Schedule of Indian Constitution Overview
The Ninth Schedule of the Indian Constitution contains a list of central and state laws which
cannot be challenged in courts.
● It was added by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951. The 13 laws were added
to the schedule through the first Amendment in 1951.
● The Ninth Schedule was added to the Constitution in 1951 through the First
AmendmentAct in response to the Supreme Court's decision in the Shankari Prasad
case(1951), which had ruled that laws enacted by the Parliament could be challenged if
they violated the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
● The Ninth Schedule is a special provision in the Constitution of India that allows the
legislature to exempt certain laws from judicial review through a constitutional
amendment.
● The Ninth Schedule was brought by adding new Article 31B, which along with Article
31A enacted with the aim of protecting laws related to agrarian reform and to abolish the
Zamindari System.
● The laws included in the Ninth Schedule are immune to being challenged in the court on
the grounds of inconsistency with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution
of India.
Cases dealing with the 9th Schedule of the
Indian Constitution?
The question of Laws in the Ninth Schedule completely exempt from judicial scrutiny has been
resolved through various Supreme Court judgments, which are given as follows:
● Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): The Supreme Court held that any law
which violates "Basic structure of the Indian Constitution" can be declared
unconstitutional by the court.
● Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981): In this significant decision, the Supreme Court
ruled that the amendments made after 24th April 1973 in Ninth Schedule can be
challenged on the grounds of constitutionality.
● I R Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007): The court ruled that any law enacted in
Ninth Schedule after 24th April 1973 must be examined under Articles 14, 19, and 21.
Furthermore, it stated that any act that is not in line with the basic structure of the
constitution can be challenged and subjected to judicial review.
Article 300-A and the Doctrine of Eminent
Domain
Article 300-A which merely says, “No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority
of law”. Hence, the rights in property can be curtailed, abridged or modified by the State only by
exercising its legislative power. An executive order depriving a person of his property without
being backed by a law is not constitutionally valid.
In addition to that, to say valid it must satisfy the following three tests:
(i) The authority which has enacted the law must have the legislative competency to do so;
(ii) It must not infringe upon any other fundamental right guaranteed by part III of the
Constitution; and
(iii) It must not violate any other provision of the Constitution.
In Basantibai v. State of Maharashtra the Court did seek to interpret the Article 300-A
favourably to the property owners by reading therein the twin requirements of ‘public purpose’
and ‘compensation’. Under Article 300-A the legislature cannot sanction the deprivation of
property for a public purpose. However, the Parliament not intended to confer an absolute right
on the legislature to deprive a citizen of his property merely by the passing of a black-letter law.
