Reference
recently Supreme Court from Article 31 (C) Decided to consider the related issue.
related facts
- The Supreme Court, while hearing a case, said that Can the government acquire and redistribute private property?
- India's Chief Justice D.Y Chandrachud A nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court led by 'Does Article 31C still exist?' Decided to consider the question related to.
Introduction of Article 31C
- Article 31C of the Constitution (25th) Amendment Act, 1971 Was presented by.
- In particular a description of the objects and reasons of the amendment 'Bank Nationalization Cases' (Rustam Cavusji Cooper vs Union of India, 1970) was mentioned, in which the Supreme Court Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1969 By implementing this, the Center was prevented from gaining control of 14 commercial banks.
- Bench of 11 judges now repealed articles 31(2) Repealed the Act, citing that Government acquiring any property for public purposes under any law cannot, unless the law provides for property compensation not decided does, or does not specify Is.
- Given that the Court has now Adequacy and Compensation may question the principles used for determining the 'Directive Principles of State Policy' through 25th Amendment Seeking to remove the difficulties coming in the way of giving effect.
- one of the means employed to do so Article 31(C) which at the time stated:
- In clause (B) or clause (C) of article 39 No law giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing specified principles shall be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with, repealed or abridged.
Article 31(C) travel
- The 25th Amendment was founded on the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973). was challenged in which The 13 judges voted with a narrow majority of 7-6. Said that one of the provisions of the Constitution 'Basic structure' which can be amended by constitutional amendment also cannot be changed.
- As part of this decision, the Court Last part of Article 31(C) That is, it repealed that part which states that 'No other law declaring that it is for the purpose of giving effect to such policy shall be called in question in any Court.'
- This opened the way for the Court to examine laws that violate the Article. 39(B) and 39(C) were made to take forward were carried out to determine whether the purpose of those laws was actually The principles laid down in these provisions is in accordance with.
- In the year 1976, Parliament passed the Constitution (42nd) Amendment Act enacted, which Article 31(C) extends to 'all or any of the principles set out in Part IV of the Constitution' Done under section 4 of.
- the resulting, Challenges to each of the Directive Principles (Articles 36-51) under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution Protected from.
- In the year 1980, Minerva Mills vs Union of India case In its decision, the Supreme Court struck down sections 4 and 5 of the amendment.
- bench of 5 judges Held that the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution was limited and that it could be used to remove these limitations and amend the Constitution itself 'Unlimited' and 'Absolute' powers Could not be provided.
- However, this decision gave rise to a discussion, which has now been resolved. supreme court Will have to do.
- By striking down a portion of the 25th Amendment, did the Court Total repeal of Article 31C did it, or he Restored the position after Kesavananda Bharati, in which Article 39(B) and (C) Were protected?
Current case in Supreme Court
- Supreme Court Chapter VIII-A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (MHADA) is hearing the challenge.
- in the year 1986 This Chapter, introduced by an amendment, empowers the Government to to distribute material resources of the constitution Obligations under Article 39(B) Citing, at the request of the residents of Mumbai Acquisition of 'equipment' assets Allows to do.
- Old, dilapidated buildings that are unsafe and house poor tenants. Mumbai Building Repair and Reconstruction Board is required to pay cess to repair and restoration projects Takes care of.
- In the year 1991, in Mumbai 'Property Owners Association' in the year 1986 The amendment was challenged in the Bombay High Court.
- But Bombay High Court Article 39(B) Articles made to further the laws Amendment citing protection given by 31C Kept intact.
- against this decision Supreme Court in December 1992 An appeal was made to the Supreme Court, where the question ultimately arose whether Private resources included in 'physical resources of the community' under Article 39(B) Such as equipment assets are included.
The post Debate related to Article 31 (C) appeared first on Careers Ready.