{"id":105422,"date":"2024-04-30T19:24:45","date_gmt":"2024-04-30T13:54:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pwonlyias.com\/stage\/?post_type=current-affairs&p=105422"},"modified":"2024-04-30T19:24:45","modified_gmt":"2024-04-30T13:54:45","slug":"supreme-court-on-article-31c","status":"publish","type":"current-affairs","link":"https:\/\/pwonlyias.com\/stage\/current-affairs\/supreme-court-on-article-31c","title":{"rendered":"Article 31C"},"content":{"rendered":"

Context:<\/b> <\/span><\/h2>\n

While hearing a case to decide whether the government can acquire and redistribute private property, a <\/span>nine-judge Bench of the Supreme Court<\/b> has chosen to address the question: <\/span>does Article 31C still exist?<\/b><\/p>\n

Article 31C:<\/b><\/span><\/h2>\n
    \n
  • About: <\/b>It protects laws enacted to ensure the <\/span>\u201cmaterial resources of the community\u201d<\/b> are <\/span>distributed to serve the common good (Article 39(b))<\/b> and that <\/span>wealth and the means of production are not \u201cconcentrated\u201d to the \u201ccommon detriment\u201d (Article 39(c)).<\/b>\n
      \n
    • As per Article 31C, these directive principles (Articles 39(b) and 39(c)) <\/span>cannot be challenged<\/b> by <\/span>invoking the right to equality (Article 14) <\/b>or the<\/span> rights under Article 19 <\/b>(freedom of speech, right to assemble peacefully, etc).<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
      Article 39 of the Constitution:<\/b> It 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.<\/span><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n
        \n
      • Introduction of Article 31C: <\/b>Article 31C was introduced by the <\/span>Constitution (Twenty-fifth) Amendment Act, 1971.<\/b>\n
          \n
        • The Statement of Objects and Reasons for the amendment mentioned the \u201c<\/span>Bank Nationalization Case\u201d (Rustom Cavasjee Cooper vs Union Of India, 1970).\u00a0<\/b><\/li>\n
        • In this case, <\/b>the<\/span> Supreme Court stopped the Centre from acquiring control of 14 commercial banks<\/b> by enacting The<\/span> Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1969.<\/b><\/li>\n
        • The court held that the \u2018<\/span>right to compensation\u2019 was not appropriately ensured by the Banking Act.<\/b><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
        • Invalidation of Act by Supreme Court Bench: <\/b>An eleven-judge Bench struck the Act down by referring to the now-repealed Article 31(2).<\/span>\n