RAS question
Article 31C of the Indian Constitution (as it stands after the Minerva Mills judgment) protects laws implementing which specific DPSPs from challenge under Articles 14 and 19?
Correct answer: (A) Articles 39(b) and 39(c) only.
After Minerva Mills, Article 31C protects only laws giving effect to Articles 39(b) and 39(c) from challenge under Articles 14 and 19.
Explanation
Article 31C was inserted by the Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act, 1971 to protect laws that give effect to the State policy behind Article 39(b) and Article 39(c). The Supreme Court source explains that Article 31C gives such laws immunity from challenges based on Articles 14 and 19, provided the law has the required link with clause (b) or clause (c) of Article 39. Parliament later used the Forty-second Amendment to widen this protection to laws made for any Directive Principle in Part IV. In Minerva Mills, the Supreme Court invalidated that wider version for violating the basic structure. The surviving protection is therefore the original, narrower one: Article 39(b) and Article 39(c), not all DPSPs.
Why the other options are wrong
- (B) Articles 36 to 51 point to the broader Part IV field, but Article 31C's surviving immunity is not available for that whole range after Minerva Mills struck down the all-DPSP expansion.
- (C) This repeats the Forty-second Amendment's widened formula, which Minerva Mills invalidated, so it does not state the present scope of Article 31C.
- (D) Articles 41 and 42 are outside the Article 39(b) and Article 39(c) wording that remains protected by Article 31C after Minerva Mills.
Concept
This tests the Fundamental Rights-DPSP balance, especially the limited constitutional shield Article 31C gives against Articles 14 and 19. It recurs in RAS because questions often turn on how landmark judgments changed the working scope of constitutional provisions.