In an October 1971 report, the Law Commission, headed by former Supreme Court Chief Justice P.B. Gajendragadkar,

It is cardinal principal of legal jurisprudence that legislature passes law

executor executes it and Courts Declare laws.viz Valid or Invalid

Constitution

The 25th Amendment was intended to strip the Supreme Court of the power to

go into the quantum of compensation for takeover of property for public use.

It would do this by amending and replacing the word "compensation" for the

word "amount" for property acquired or requisitioned. The Amendment would

also to insert a new clause 31(C) in the Constitution, which would prevent a

bill from being challenged in the Court, either under Article 14 (equality

before the law), Article 19 (right to property, freedom of association,

speech, religion etc.) or Article 31 (on deprivation of law except under

authority of law), if Parliament certified that the bill was intended to

ensure equitable distribution of material resources or to prevent

concentration of economic power.[1]

In an October 1971 report, the Law Commission, headed by former Supreme

Court Chief Justice P.B. Gajendragadkar, recommended deletion of the part of

article 31C which placed any law containing a declaration that it was for

giving effect to certain Directive Principles, outside judicial review. The

Commission stated that it would be "unreasonable to prevent any judicial

inquiry into the question as to whether laws passed in pursuance of the

policy (giving primacy to Directive Principles) bore any connection with the

objects intended to be served by it. Parliament should trust the judiciary

to do its duty fairly, fearlessly, impartially and objectively and to take

cognizance of the changed philosophy which Parliament proposed to adopt in

recognising the importance, the urgency and the significance of implementing

the Directive Principles in question". However, the report was rejected by

the government.[1] The Law Commission's view would later be justified in

1973 by the Supreme Court verdict in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala,

in which the Court held the relevant section of the 25th Amendment as

unconstitutional

--The constitutionality of sections 4 and 55 of the 42nd Amendment were

challenged in Minerva Mills v. Union of India, when Charan Singh was

caretaker Prime Minister. Section 4 of the 42nd Amendment, had amended

Article 31C of the Constitution to accord precedence to the Directive

Principles of State Policy articulated in Part IV of the Constitution over

the Fundamental Rights of individuals articulated in Part III. Section 55

prevented any constitutional amendment from being "called in question in any

Court on any ground". It also declared that there would be no limitation

whatever on the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution. After the

1980 Indian general election, the Supreme Court declared sections 4 and 55

of the 42nd amendment as unconstitutional. It further endorsed and evolved

the basic structure doctrine of the Constitution

Bad effects of Article 31-C:-

There are a large number of instances, which suffered because of Article

31-C, such as, Coal Nationalization, Acquisition of textile Undertakings,&

electricity Supply Undertakings, refractory plants Nationalization,

acquisition under Urban Land Ceiling Act,etc., which were all taken over for

a pittance.

Article 31-C, as originally enacted, only protected laws meant for

furthering the directive principle contained in Articles 39(b) & 39(c). By

the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution, the scope of 31-C was widened to

protect all laws furthering any of the directive principle contained in Part

IV of the Constitution.

A Constitution Bench in Minerval Mill case struck down the amendment to

31-C. The Property owners are contending that once the amendment is struck

down, the state cannot rely on Article 31-C to deprive industrialists,

businessman & persons of their property without paying adequate compensation

equal to the market value, as Article 31-C does not at all exist.

Under the MHADA Act, the property can be acuired by MHADA/ Government on

payment of 100 months rent to the owners of the property, thereby taking

away thge property of owners. Further, The Maharashtra Rent Control Act

1999, wherein the rents are frozen at 1940 level & meagre 4% increase is

permitted every year. The Government has claimed the protection of Article

31C of the Constitution of India to MHADA Act 1976 and The Maharashtra Rent

Control Act 1999.