It is clear to us that the proviso to Article 31A(l) of the Constitution confers certain rights upon individuals and protects them from constitutionally illegal invasion. We ate, . therefore, unable to accept the argument advanced on behalf of the appellants that the "protective umbrella" of Article 3 lB does not shield the impugned provisions against an attack based upon the limits imposed by the second proviso to Article 31A(l) on legislative power. The argument overlooks certain obvious answers : firstly, that limits on legislative powers, imposed by Part· III of the Constitution, do have the direct result of protecting individual rights; and, secondly, that no part of the second proviso to Article 31 (1) of the. Constitution was, as already pointed out above, infringed by the impugned provisions; and, thirdly, even if one were to assume, for the sake of argument, that rights conferred on individuals by the 2nd proviso to Article 31 ( 1), were infringed in any way, provisions of Article 31B of the Constitution are enough to repel an attack based upon such an alleged infringement. Both Atricles 31A(l) and 3 lB are intended to operate as protections against consequences -0f. what could otherwise be breaches of the Constitution.
