Article 31B

Polity & Governance glossary

Also called: Validation of certain Acts and Regulations · Topic: Fundamental Rights and Constitutional Remedies · NCERT: Beyond NCERT

Meaning

Article 31B says that any Act placed in the Ninth Schedule (a list of Acts that Parliament adds to the Constitution by constitutional amendment) cannot be held void because it breaks a fundamental right in Part III. It was added by the 1st Amendment (1951). After Waman Rao (1981) and I.R. Coelho (2007), Acts added to the Schedule after 24 April 1973 can still be struck down if they damage the basic structure.

It matters because it is the strongest exception to Article 13. It began as a tool to save land reform laws. Today it sits at the centre of the fight between Parliament's power to amend and the courts' power of judicial review (the courts' power to strike down laws that break the Constitution).

Explanation

How the shield works

The normal rule under Article 13: the State cannot make a law that "takes away or abridges" fundamental rights. Such a law is void "to the extent of the contravention" [1].
Article 31B makes an exception to this rule:
An Act listed in the Ninth Schedule cannot be held void, and cannot be treated as ever having been void, for breaking any right in Part III.
This works even if a court had already struck the Act down. The Act comes back into force.
So the shield works backwards in time, not only for the future.
It covers every right in Part III. This makes it wider than Article 31A, which blocks only challenges under Arts. 14 and 19.
It does not depend on Article 31A. The text says it applies "without prejudice to the generality" of Art. 31A. So a law does not have to be about estates or land to be protected.
The legislature keeps control: the state legislature or Parliament that made the Act can still amend or repeal it.
It guards only against Part III. It protects a law from fundamental-rights challenges, and nothing else.

How a law enters the Ninth Schedule

Parliament passes a constitutional amendment under Article 368. An ordinary law is not enough.
Special majority in each House: a majority of the total membership of the House, and two-thirds of the members present and voting.
The Act is added to the Ninth Schedule list. From then on, Article 31B protects it. - How the list grew: - It began with 13 Acts in 1951. - The 17th Amendment (1964) added 44 Acts. - It now has about 284 Acts.

Limits: the 24 April 1973 cut-off

Basic structure: the core features of the Constitution that not even an amendment can destroy. Kesavananda Bharati laid this down on 24 April 1973.
Laws placed in the Schedule before 24 April 1973:
They keep full protection.
Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981) held that only amendments made after that date are open to basic-structure review.
Laws placed in the Schedule after 24 April 1973:
I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) was decided by a bench of nine judges.
It held that such laws can be tested. If a law damages the basic structure, it can be struck down.
The test includes the rights in Arts. 14, 19 and 21.
Result: listing a law in the Ninth Schedule no longer gives it complete immunity. Courts now ask whether the effect of the law on rights destroys the basic structure.

In the Constitution and practice

Where it sits: Article 31B is in Part III under the "Right to Property" heading, next to Art. 31A. The Ninth Schedule is at the end of the Constitution. The 1st Amendment (1951) created both.
Why it was added:
States passed zamindari abolition laws (laws ending large landlord estates and giving land to tillers).
In Kameshwar Singh v. State of Bihar (Patna HC, 1951), the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 was struck down under Art. 14, because landlords got compensation at unequal rates.
Parliament answered with Arts. 31A and 31B, so that land reform laws could not be challenged in court.
First test in court:
Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951) upheld the 1st Amendment, including Art. 31B.
It held that Parliament can amend fundamental rights under Art. 368.
The fight between Parliament and the courts:
Golaknath (1967) held that Parliament cannot amend fundamental rights.
The 24th Amendment (1971) reversed this by adding Art. 13(4): constitutional amendments are not "law" under Art. 13.
Kesavananda Bharati (1973), with 13 judges deciding 7:6, held that Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution but cannot destroy its basic structure. This set up the 1973 cut-off later used for the Ninth Schedule.
Use beyond land reform:
Tamil Nadu's 69% reservation law (1993) was placed in the Ninth Schedule by the 76th Amendment (1994).
Since this came after 1973, the law is open to review under the Coelho test.
Where it stands now:
Waman Rao (1981) and I.R. Coelho (2007) together decide how far the shield reaches.
Laws listed before 24 April 1973 are fully safe.
Laws listed after that date get protection only if they pass the basic-structure test.

Don't confuse with

Article 31A: it protects only certain kinds of laws (taking over estates, taking over management of property, merging companies, changing mining leases), and only from Arts. 14 and 19. Art. 31B protects listed Acts of any subject from all of Part III.
Article 31C (25th Amendment, 1971): it protects laws giving effect to Art. 39(b) and (c), the Directive Principles on sharing out material resources, from Arts. 14 and 19. It is linked to a goal, not to a list.
Article 13(4) (24th Amendment, 1971): it keeps constitutional amendments outside Art. 13. Art. 31B protects ordinary Acts once they are placed in the Ninth Schedule.
Ninth Schedule vs. other Schedules: only an Act in the Ninth Schedule gets Art. 31B protection, and it can enter the list only through a constitutional amendment.

Prelims Hooks

Arts. 31A, 31B and the Ninth Schedule were all added by the 1st Amendment (1951). They were upheld in Shankari Prasad (1951).
The Ninth Schedule began with 13 Acts and now has about 284. The 17th Amendment (1964) added 44 Acts.
Cut-off date: 24 April 1973 (the day of the Kesavananda judgment). It was set by Waman Rao (1981) and applied by I.R. Coelho (2007, nine judges).
Trap: Art. 31B shields against all fundamental rights. Art. 31A and Art. 31C shield only against Arts. 14 and 19.
Trap: a Ninth Schedule law is not fully immune today. If it was added after 24 April 1973, it can be tested against the basic structure, including Arts. 14, 19 and 21.
Example: the 76th Amendment (1994) placed Tamil Nadu's 69% reservation law (1993) in the Ninth Schedule.

Mains Points

From land reform to a general shield: Art. 31B was meant to protect zamindari abolition laws after rulings like Kameshwar Singh (1951). It was later used for unrelated laws, such as Tamil Nadu's 69% reservation law, which turned the Ninth Schedule into a way to avoid judicial review. This raises a question about whether Parliament should be able to remove a law from rights review just by listing it.
Coelho's balance: I.R. Coelho (2007) did not strike down Art. 31B. Instead it applied basic-structure review to laws added after 24 April 1973. This keeps Parliament's power to amend under Art. 368 for real social reform. It also keeps the courts as the final protectors of Arts. 14, 19 and 21. This fits the line from Golaknath to Kesavananda that judicial review is a core feature.
Reform idea: Parliament could limit new Ninth Schedule entries to laws clearly linked to the Directive Principles (such as Art. 39(b) and (c)). It could also give reasons for each entry, so laws are less likely to fail the Coelho test and fewer cases reach the courts.

Related concepts

The 'State', Article 13 and the right to property

Sources

1Article 13: Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rightsconstitutionofindia.net · tier 3