Application of the “Eggshell Skull” Principle

The Supreme Court pointed out that both the state and national consumer commissions misinterpreted the legal doctrine known as the “eggshell skull” rule.

What is the ‘Eggshell Skull’ Rule?

• The doctrine gets its name from the metaphor that a person who causes harm is fully liable even if the victim has an unusually fragile condition—like having a skull as delicate as an eggshell.
• Also referred to as the “thin skull” rule, it is primarily applied in civil liability cases, notably in medical negligence claims.
• Under this principle, greater compensation may be warranted if:
  • The injury inflicted is more severe due to the victim’s pre-existing vulnerability, despite a typical individual not being similarly affected.
  • The event causing the injury was unlawful.
• This rule originated in the 1891 Wisconsin case Vosburg v. Putney, where a minor pre-existing condition exacerbated the injury.
• The Indian Supreme Court applied this doctrine in Jyoti Devi vs. Suket Hospital, reinstating the compensation initially granted by a district consumer forum in a case involving medical negligence.

Article 31C of the Indian Constitution

A nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court is set to deliberate on the constitutional relevance of Article 31C, raising the fundamental question of whether it remains valid law.

The court is examining whether the government retains the authority to acquire and redistribute private property under this provision.

Overview of Article 31C

• Introduced via the 25th Constitutional Amendment in 1971, Article 31C aimed to insulate laws intended to implement certain Directive Principles from being invalidated due to conflict with Fundamental Rights.
• Specifically, it protects laws aimed at enforcing Article 39(b) and (c) (related to equitable distribution of resources and prevention of wealth concentration) from challenges under Articles 14 (equality) and 19 (freedoms).
• The provision also states that if a law declares it is made to advance such policies, courts cannot question whether it actually does so.

Judicial Interpretation and Constitutional Challenges

• Kesavananda Bharati (1973): The Supreme Court introduced the “basic structure doctrine”, ruling that Parliament cannot alter the Constitution’s core principles. It struck down the part of Article 31C that barred judicial review.
• 42nd Amendment (1976): This broadened Article 31C to include all Directive Principles (Articles 36–51), effectively prioritizing them over rights in Articles 14 and 19.
• Minerva Mills (1980): The apex court invalidated parts of the 42nd Amendment, including the expanded form of Article 31C, reinforcing the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.

Ongoing Legal Debate

• One view holds that the 42nd Amendment’s expanded version of Article 31C replaced the original, and when it was invalidated, the original did not automatically revive.
• Another interpretation invokes the “doctrine of revival”, arguing that if the newer version was constitutionally invalid, the original version—limited to Article 39(b) and (c)—remains intact.

Precedent from the 99th Constitutional Amendment

• When the 99th Amendment establishing the NJAC (National Judicial Appointments Commission) was struck down, the original collegium system was revived—supporting the argument that invalidation can reactivate prior law.

Understanding Articles 31, 31A, and 31B

Article 31

• Originally provided the right to property as a Fundamental Right, barring deprivation without legal authority. It was repealed by the 44th Amendment in 1978, converting the right to property into a legal right under Article 300A.
• The provision was controversial due to its constraint on the state’s power to acquire property for public purposes without compensation, prompting several amendments (1st, 4th, 7th, 25th, 39th, 40th, and 42nd).

Article 31A

• Shields five types of laws from being invalidated on grounds of violating Articles 14 or 19:
  1. State acquisition of estates,
  2. Government management of properties,
  3. Mergers of corporations,
  4. Alteration of rights of company shareholders/directors,
  5. Changes to mining lease rights.
• It also guarantees compensation when private property is acquired by the state.

Article 31B

• Protects any law listed in the Ninth Schedule from being declared unconstitutional for violating Fundamental Rights.
• Unlike Article 31A, Article 31B has a broader scope, but its immunity is not absolute. In I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007), the Supreme Court held that even Ninth Schedule laws are subject to scrutiny if they infringe the Constitution’s basic structure.