Article 31C gives the government a blank check to pass any law without judicial review.

Courts, starting with Kesavananda Bharati (1973), held that judges can still examine whether a law genuinely relates to Article 39(b)/(c); a law can't just claim that purpose to escape scrutiny.

Article 31C protects laws pursuing any Directive Principle in the Constitution.

After Minerva Mills (1980), the protection applies only to laws implementing Article 39(b) and (c), not all Directive Principles in Part IV.

The Constitution of India

Article 31C

Saving of laws giving effect to certain directive principles

Notwithstanding anything contained in article 13, no law giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing the principles specified in clause (b) or clause (c) of article 39 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 article 14 or article 19:§

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.§

Why this exists

Article 31C was added by the 25th Constitutional Amendment in 1971, during a period when Parliament wanted to push land reforms and redistributive economic laws without courts blocking them for infringing property or equality rights. It was meant to give real teeth to Directive Principles (Article 39(b) and (c)) that aim at fair distribution of material resources and preventing concentration of wealth, by shielding such laws from challenges under Articles 14 and 19.

How courts read it

In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court upheld the core of Article 31C but struck down a clause that tried to bar judicial review entirely, holding that courts must still check whether a law truly relates to Article 39(b)/(c). Later, the 42nd Amendment (1976) tried to expand Article 31C to cover all Directive Principles, not just 39(b)/(c). In Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), the Supreme Court struck down this expansion, ruling it upset the 'basic structure' balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, and restored Article 31C to its original, narrower scope.

Common misconceptions

Myth: Article 31C gives the government a blank check to pass any law without judicial review.
Fact: Courts, starting with Kesavananda Bharati (1973), held that judges can still examine whether a law genuinely relates to Article 39(b)/(c); a law can't just claim that purpose to escape scrutiny.
Myth: Article 31C protects laws pursuing any Directive Principle in the Constitution.
Fact: After Minerva Mills (1980), the protection applies only to laws implementing Article 39(b) and (c), not all Directive Principles in Part IV.