25th Constitutional Amendment Act 1971

Topic: Amendment of the Constitution and the Basic Structure · NCERT: Beyond NCERT

Meaning

The 25th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971 changed the right to property in three ways:

• It replaced the word "compensation" with "amount" in Art. 31(2), so courts could no longer check whether the payment for property the State took was enough.
• It added Art. 31(2B), so a property-acquisition law could not be challenged under Art. 19(1)(f).
• It inserted Art. 31C. This shields laws that carry out Art. 39(b) and (c) from challenge under Arts. 14, 19 and 31.

It matters because, for the first time, some Directive Principles were placed above fundamental rights. Its Art. 31C was then tested in Kesavananda Bharati (1973), the case that created the basic structure doctrine.

Explanation

Why it was passed

• The trigger was R.C. Cooper v. Union of India (1970), the Bank Nationalisation case.
• In 1969 the Indira Gandhi government nationalised 14 private banks [1].
• A shareholder, Rustom Cavasjee Cooper, said the compensation was too low and broke his property rights [1].

• The Supreme Court agreed and struck down parts of the law [1].

• The political setting: after its big win in the 1971 Lok Sabha election, the government used its large majority to reverse such judgments.

• The goal: to reverse R.C. Cooper [1]. The Act came into force on 20 April 1972 [1].

Part 1: "Compensation" became "amount" (Art. 31(2))

• Before 1971: courts could check whether the payment for taken property was fair "compensation".
• After 1971: the State paid only an "amount" fixed by the law. Courts could not ask whether it was adequate [1].
• Art. 31(2B) (new): cut the link with Art. 19(1)(f), which was then the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property. A property-acquisition law could no longer be challenged under Art. 19(1)(f).

Part 2: The new Art. 31C

Section 3 of the Act inserted Art. 31C [3]. It has three pieces:

• First part: a law that carries out the State's policy under Art. 39(b) or Art. 39(c) cannot be struck down for breaking Art. 14, 19 or 31.
• Art. 39(b): ownership and control of the community's material resources should be shared out to serve the common good.
• Art. 39(c): the economy should not concentrate wealth and the means of production to the common harm.

• Both are Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs). These are guidelines for government in Part IV, and courts cannot enforce them.

• Second part: if a law declares that it carries out this policy, no court can question that declaration.

• Proviso: a state law gets this protection only if it was reserved for the President and has received the President's assent.

Limits set later by the courts

• Kesavananda Bharati (1973) kept the first part and struck down the second part (the bar on court review) [4].
• So courts can still check whether a law really carries out Art. 39(b)–(c). The legislature's own declaration does not settle the question.

In the Constitution and practice

• Where it sits: Part III (Fundamental Rights). It changed Art. 31(2), added Art. 31(2B) and inserted Art. 31C. It works with Art. 39(b) and (c) in Part IV.
• The package it belonged to:
• The 24th Amendment (1971) said Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights.
• The 26th Amendment (1971) abolished privy purses.

• The 29th Amendment (1972) put the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Acts of 1969 and 1971 in the Ninth Schedule [2].

• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (24 April 1973) had 13 judges and was decided 7:6:

• The right to property is not part of the basic structure, so the change from "compensation" to "amount" was valid.
• The first part of Art. 31C was upheld by seven judges. They were the six judges who held that the amending power had no limits (Ray, Palekar, Mathew, Beg, Dwivedi and Y.V. Chandrachud) plus Justice H.R. Khanna [4].
• Khanna J did not think the amending power was unlimited. He tested Art. 31C on its own and found that the first part did not damage the basic structure [4].

• The second part was struck down. Khanna J said it "contains the seed of national disintegration" [4].

  • It let any legislature, even a state legislature, break Arts. 14, 19 and 31 just by adding a declaration. In effect, that was a power to amend the Constitution [4].
  • It made the legislature the final judge of its own law. Shutting out judicial review (the courts' power to check whether a law follows the Constitution) "strikes at the basic structure" [4].

• 42nd Amendment (1976), Section 4: widened Art. 31C to protect laws that carry out any DPSP [3][4].

• Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980): struck down this widening. It destroyed the balance between fundamental rights and DPSPs, and that balance is part of the basic structure [3][4].
• Waman Rao v. Union of India (1980): held the original Art. 31C valid to the extent Kesavananda upheld it [3][4].
• Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra (5 November 2024, 2024 INSC 835): a nine-judge bench led by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud held [4]:
• Art. 31C, as upheld in Kesavananda, is still in force [4].
• A protected law is safe only from challenges under Arts. 14 and 19. It can still be challenged under other provisions, such as Art. 300A (the legal right to property) [4].
• Not all private property is a "material resource of the community" under Art. 39(b) [4].

Don't confuse with

• 24th Amendment (1971): the 24th dealt with the power to amend. It added Art. 13(4) and Art. 368(3) and made the President's assent obligatory. The 25th dealt with property and Art. 31C. The 24th reversed Golaknath; the 25th reversed R.C. Cooper [1].
• Art. 31B / Ninth Schedule: Art. 31B protects only the specific laws listed in the Ninth Schedule, such as the Kerala Acts added by the 29th Amendment [2]. Art. 31C protects any law that carries out Art. 39(b)–(c), with no list.
• Original Art. 31C vs 42nd Amendment version: the original covers only Art. 39(b) and (c) and survives (Kesavananda, Waman Rao, 2024 ruling). The 42nd Amendment extension to all DPSPs was struck down in Minerva Mills (1980) [3][4].
• "Compensation" vs "amount": "compensation" let courts test whether the payment was fair. "Amount" meant the law fixed the payment, and courts could not question whether it was adequate [1].

Prelims Hooks

• 25th Amendment (1971) → "compensation" became "amount" in Art. 31(2). It added Art. 31(2B) and Art. 31C. It came into force on 20 April 1972 [1].
• Case it reversed: R.C. Cooper v. Union of India (1970), the Bank Nationalisation case. It was not Golaknath, which the 24th Amendment reversed [1].
• Original Art. 31C → protects laws for Art. 39(b) and (c) only, against Arts. 14, 19 and 31. A state law also needs the President's assent.
• Trap: Kesavananda (1973) upheld the first part of Art. 31C. It struck down only the clause that barred courts from questioning the legislature's declaration [4].
• Pair: 42nd Amendment (1976) extended Art. 31C to all DPSPs → Minerva Mills (1980) struck that down → Waman Rao (1980) upheld the original Art. 31C [3][4].
• Property Owners Association (2024), a 9-judge bench → Art. 31C as upheld in Kesavananda is still in force, but laws can still be challenged under Art. 300A [4].

Mains Points

• Fundamental rights vs DPSPs:
• Art. 31C let the social-justice goals in Art. 39(b)–(c) override Arts. 14 and 19. This was the first time DPSPs were given priority over fundamental rights.

• The Court accepted this priority (Kesavananda, Waman Rao) but would not let it become total. Minerva Mills (1980) held that the balance between Parts III and IV is itself a basic feature, and the 2024 nine-judge ruling keeps that balance.

• Parliamentary majority vs constitutional supremacy:

• The 25th Amendment, passed by a government with a large majority, tried to stop courts from reviewing property laws and legislative declarations.

• Kesavananda struck down the "no court review" clause. It held that even an elected legislature cannot be the final judge of its own law. Judicial review is part of the basic structure [4].

• Property rights and redistribution:

• Replacing "compensation" with "amount" helped land reform and nationalisation by removing court checks on the adequacy of payment [1].
• The 2024 ruling limits this power: not all private property is a "material resource of the community", and Art. 300A still protects owners [4].

Related concepts

• 24th Constitutional Amendment Act 1971
• Kesavananda Bharati case
• Basic structure doctrine
• Letter and spirit of the Constitution

Read more

• Parliament vs the judiciary II: the 24th and 25th Amendments and Kesavananda Bharati