In this case, the provisions of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 were challenged for being violative of Articles 14 and 19. It was argued that they were enacted to give effect to principles under Articles 39(b) and 31-C protects them from being challenged. The Forty-Second Amendment to the Constitution expanded the protective scope of Article 31-C to cover laws furthering directive principles, not just those in Article 39(b). This amendment was struck down in Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India^[2]. It thus became imperative for the Court to first decide if the unamended Article 31-C continues to survive after the Court struck down the amendment.

Minerva mills and unresolved questions of revival

The Court’s decision in Minerva Mills case restored the balance between fundamental rights and directive principles, but it raised a critical question: Does the unamended Article 31-C, automatically revive after the amendment was struck down?^[3] This question remained unresolved until the Court’s decision in this case, which has now decisively confirmed that the unamended Article 31-C does indeed survive.

The doctrine of revival: Key arguments and judicial reasoning

This doctrine operates on the basis that when a constitutional amendment is struck down, the prior, unamended text automatically gets restored, preventing a gap or a vacuum in the Constitution or legal framework.

Pen and ink theory: Against the automatic revival, it was argued that after a new provision is inserted, the old text ceases to exist and cannot be given legal effect.^[4] It was argued that while Minerva Mills case^[5] decision stopped the newly inserted text from being enforced, it cannot reverse the first step of erasure and restore the deleted original text.^[6] It was argued that this revival is a legislative exercise and a judicial one. The Supreme Court rejected these arguments,^[7] emphasising the importance of continuity and coherence in the constitutional framework.

Key reasoning of the Supreme Court

Preserving constitutional stability: The Court referred to multiple instances to argue that not allowing unamended or original text to revive would lead to disastrous consequences. In NJAC decision^[8] where the Court struck down the amendment that repealed the collegium system for appointment of Judges, it was held that the collegium system would survive upon annulment of the amendment.^[9] Any other interpretation would create a void and lead to breakdown of constitutional machinery and have dire consequences.^[10] While arriving at the conclusion, the Court also relied on other cases that assumed automatic revival of original Article 31-C.^[11]

Basic structure doctrine as a foundation for revival: The Court grounded its reasoning in the basic structure doctrine. The revival of original text ensures that invalidated amendments do not weaken the foundational and core values of the constitution. This ensures continuity and coherence in fundamental rights and directive principles.

Composite and indivisible legislative intent: The Court explained two expressions of the legislative intent — the original text and the amended text. The Court observed that if the amended text is invalided, the only valid expression of legislative intent is the original text. The Court emphasised that if it were to assume that the original text could not be enforced because it had been repealed, this would lead to a third outcome — a legal vacuum that could not have been intended as a possible outcome.^[12]

Implications of the judgment

This ruling has profound implications for Indian constitutional legal framework, legislative powers, and social welfare policy. Here is a closer look at its far-reaching consequences:

Constitutional continuity and stability: By affirming the doctrine of revival, the Court has ensured that amendments, if struck down, do not create a legal vacuum. This principle is crucial where continuity of legislative texts is essential to avoid interpretive uncertainties and conflicting decisions. Automatic revival preserves the integrity of the Constitution as a cohesive and functional document, specifically in cases where amendments interfere with the Constitution’s core structure such as the appointment of Judges and the NJAC case^[13].

Setting a precedent in constitutional interpretation: This judgment sets a clear precedent for interpreting future amendments and providing various stakeholders with a reliable framework for interpreting laws. The affirmation of revival as a default rule offers clarity not just to the lawmakers, by allowing them to understand the boundaries within which they can amend the Constitution but also to the judiciary by allowing them to interpret amendments with clarity to avoid unintended constitutional void or crisis.

Flexible approach of interpretation: Significantly, the Court also held that in cases where there is evidence to suggest that the legislature would have repealed the original text independent of introducing the amended text, a court can continue to give effect to the repeal despite invalidating the new text. The Supreme Court stressed that a court must assess both the totality of the legislative circumstance and the logical consequence from the decision to invalidate a statute or provision.^[14]

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision on the doctrine of revival in this case is a notable milestone in Indian constitutional jurisprudence. It ensures that amendments do not disrupt the Constitution’s foundational structure or core values. By holding that the unamended Article 31-C continues in force, this decision not just provides much needed clarity to lawyers, courts, civil societies and legislatures on principles of interpretation for constitutional amendments but also provides a solid bedrock for India’s social welfare legislations to function smoothly.

Footnote

[1] 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3122.

[2] (1980) 3 SCC 625.

[3] (1980) 3 SCC 625, para 28.

[4] 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3122, para 46.

[5] (1980) 3 SCC 625.

[6] 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3122, .

[7] 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3122, .

[8] Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn. v. Union of India, (2016) 5 SCC 1.

[9] (2016) 5 SCC 1, para 60.

[10] (2016) 5 SCC 1, .

[11] 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3122, para 69, (decisions in Bhim Singhji v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 166 and Sanjeev Coke Mfg. Co. v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., (1983) 1 SCC 147).

[12] 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3122, para 65.

[13] (2016) 5 SCC 1.

[14] 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3122, paras 63 and 68.

This article was originally published in SCC Online on 13 November 2024 Co-written by: Varun Pathak, Partner; Tejpal Singh Rathore, Associate. Click here for original article.

Read Less-