3. Saving of Laws Giving Effect to Certain Directive Principles

Article 31C, as inserted by the 25th Amendment Act of 1971, contained the following two provisions:

(a) No law that seeks to implement the socialistic directive principles specified in Article 39(b)21 or (c)22 shall be void on the ground of contravention of the fundamental rights conferred by Article 14 (equality before law and equal protection of laws) or Article 19 (protection of six rights in respect of speech, assembly, movement, etc.)‌

(b) No law containing a declaration that it is for giving effect to such policy shall be questioned in any court on the ground that it does not give effect to such a policy.

In the Kesavananda Bharati case23 (1973), the Supreme Court declared the above second provision of Article 31C as unconstitutional and invalid on the ground that judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution and hence, cannot be taken away. However, the above first provision of Article 31C was held to be constitutional and valid.

The 42nd Amendment Act (1976) extended the scope of the above first provision of Article 31C by including within its protection any law to implement any of the directive principles specified in Part IV of the Constitution and not merely in Article 39 (b) or (c). However, this extention was declared as unconstitutional and invalid by the Supreme Court in the Minerva Mills case24 (1980).

The Fundamental Rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution have met with a wide and varied criticism. The arguments of the critics are: