Introduction: The Interplay between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP)

• In the recent hearings of Property Owners Association vs State of Maharashtra before a nine-judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India, two critical questions emerged, shedding light on the complex relationship between fundamental rights and DPSPs as enshrined in the Constitution.
• Firstly, the interpretation of the term “material resources of the community” in Article 39(b) was scrutinized.
• Secondly, the immunity of laws aimed at fulfilling Article 39(b) from challenges based on fundamental rights to equality and freedom was debated.

Historical Context: The Evolution of Constitutional Interpretation

• The conflict between Part III (fundamental rights) and Part IV (DPSPs) of the Indian Constitution has persisted since its inception.
• Despite Part III’s enforceability and Part IV’s status as aspirational goals, tensions have arisen, especially during the 1970s when amendments sought to shield legislation from judicial review.

The Introduction of Article 31C:

• The 25th amendment introduced Article 31C in 1971, aiming to shield laws furthering Article 39(b) and (c) from challenges based on Articles 14 and 19.
• However, this led to concerns regarding the erosion of judicial review and the potential abuse of legislative powers.

Kesavananda Bharati Case: Clarifying the Boundaries

• In the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case of 1973, the Supreme Court held that while certain amendments were permissible, those undermining the Constitution’s basic structure would be deemed void.
• However, the verdict did not provide a definitive resolution regarding Article 31C’s compatibility with the Constitution’s core principles.

Further Amendments and Judicial Scrutiny

• The 42nd amendment in 1976 expanded Article 31C’s scope to encompass laws furthering any DPSP, not just Articles 39(b) and (c).
• Subsequent judicial interventions, such as the Minerva Mills case in 1980, questioned the constitutionality of this amendment, emphasizing the intrinsic connection between fundamental rights and the governance framework.

The Conundrum of Article 31C: Uncertainty Persists

• Despite judicial interventions, clarity regarding Article 31C’s validity remains elusive.
• Contradictory judgments, exemplified by Waman Rao vs Union of India, underscore the lack of consensus on whether laws aimed at promoting DPSPs can infringe fundamental rights.

Property Owners Case: A Crucial Opportunity for Clarity

• In the ongoing Property Owners case, the Supreme Court faces the task of determining the validity of a law allowing a State government board to assume control over dilapidated buildings.
• While examining its alignment with Article 39(b), the Court must grapple with whether such legislation can be subject to scrutiny under Articles 14 and 19.

Conclusion: Resolving the Conflict for Constitutional Integrity

• The Property Owners case presents an opportune moment for the Supreme Court to reconcile the conflict between fundamental rights and DPSPs.
• By providing clarity on Article 31C’s compatibility with the Constitution’s basic structure, the Court can reaffirm the primacy of fundamental rights while recognizing the importance of DPSPs in shaping India’s socio-economic landscape.