1. Introduction & Summary
The Right to Property has had one of the most contentious and dynamic journeys in Indian constitutional history. Originally enshrined as a Fundamental Right under Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31, it became a major point of conflict between the legislature (aiming to implement socio-economic reforms like land redistribution) and the judiciary (protecting property rights).
This led to a series of constitutional amendments and landmark court cases. Ultimately, the 44th Amendment Act, 1978, abolished the Right to Property as a Fundamental Right and re-enacted it as a constitutional/legal right under Article 300A. This section traces this complex evolution, detailing its original position, the reasons for its modification, key judicial pronouncements, the impact of the 44th Amendment, and its current status.
(Source: Broad understanding synthesized from Laxmikanth, 'Indian Polity'; D.D. Basu, 'Introduction to the Constitution of India'; Granville Austin, 'Working a Democratic Constitution')
2. Core Content: The Right's Evolution
6.9.1: Original Position: Articles 19(1)(f) and 31
Article 19(1)(f)
- Guaranteed to all citizens the right "to acquire, hold and dispose of property."
- Subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(5) for public interest or Scheduled Tribes.
Article 31: Compulsory Acquisition
- Protection against deprivation of property for any person (citizens and non-citizens).
- Art 31(1): "No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law."
- Art 31(2): Acquisition must be for "public purpose" and provide for "compensation."
- Art 31(3): State law for acquisition required President's assent.
Significance: Inclusion as a Fundamental Right gave property rights high protection, impeding sweeping socio-economic reforms like agrarian reforms.
6.9.2: Legislative Adjustments: Series of Amendments to Article 31
The Right to Property under Article 31 became a major impediment to the government's socialist agenda of land reforms and nationalization. This led to a series of constitutional amendments aimed at curtailing this right and immunizing certain laws from judicial review.
1st Amendment Act, 1951
Added Articles 31A and 31B and the Ninth Schedule. 31A saved acquisition of 'estates' from challenge, 31B protected laws in Ninth Schedule from FR violation claims. Reason: To validate zamindari abolition laws.
4th Amendment Act, 1955
Modified Article 31(2) to make the adequacy of compensation non-justiciable. Clarified Article 31A, widening its scope.
17th Amendment Act, 1964
Further expanded the definition of 'estate' in Article 31A and added more laws to the Ninth Schedule.
25th Amendment Act, 1971
Substituted "compensation" with "amount" in Article 31(2) to imply non-market value. Inserted Article 31C to protect laws implementing DPSPs 39(b) and (c) from Articles 14, 19, or 31 challenge.
Other Amendments (29th, 34th, 40th, 42nd)
These amendments primarily added more land reform laws to the Ninth Schedule, demonstrating continuous legislative efforts to immunize such reforms from judicial review. The 42nd Amendment also expanded Art 31C (later restricted by Minerva Mills).
Impact of these Amendments: Significantly curtailed the scope of the Right to Property and limited judicial review, reflecting the ongoing tussle between Parliament's zeal for socio-economic reforms and the judiciary's attempts to protect property rights.
6.9.3: Judicial Scrutiny and Conflict: Landmark Cases
The judiciary played a crucial role in interpreting the Right to Property and often came into direct conflict with the legislature's reform efforts.
Kameshwar Singh vs. State of Bihar (1952)
First challenges to land reforms
Early land reform laws were challenged and some High Courts struck them down, directly leading to the 1st Amendment Act, 1951, to protect these laws.
State of West Bengal vs. Bela Banerjee (1954)
Definition of "Compensation"
SC held "compensation" under Art 31(2) meant "just equivalent" or full market value, making acquisition expensive and leading to the 4th Amendment.
Golak Nath vs. State of Punjab (1967)
Amendability of Fundamental Rights
SC held FRs were transcendental and immutable; Parliament could not amend them under Article 368 to take away or abridge them. Triggered the 24th Amendment.
R.C. Cooper vs. Union of India (Bank Nationalisation Case, 1970)
Reasonableness of "Amount"
SC struck down the Act, holding that the "amount" payable must be reasonable and based on relevant principles, not illusory. Also, property deprivation could be tested under Art 19(1)(f).
Madhav Rao Scindia vs. Union of India (Privy Purses Case, 1971)
Abolition of Privy Purses
SC struck down the presidential order abolishing privy purses, deeming them a form of property. Led to the 26th Amendment Act.
Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973)
Basic Structure Doctrine
SC upheld Parliament's power to amend FRs but introduced the Basic Structure doctrine. Crucially, the Right to Property was NOT held to be part of the basic structure, paving the way for its removal as an FR.
6.9.4: The Turning Point: 44th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1978
Key Actions of the 44th Amendment:
- Abolished Right to Property as a Fundamental Right: Removed it as a primary source of conflict and litigation.
- Deleted Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31: Removed these articles from Part III (Fundamental Rights).
- Inserted new Article 300A in Part XII: Re-enacted the right as: "No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law."
6.9.5: Current Status of Right to Property
Following the 44th Amendment Act, 1978, the status of the Right to Property is fundamentally altered but still provides important safeguards:
Constitutional & Legal Right
No longer a Fundamental Right, but a constitutional right (under Art 300A) and a legal right, regulated by ordinary laws.
Not Part of Basic Structure
The Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati case had already indicated it was not part of the basic structure, solidifying its removal as an FR.
Protects vs. Executive Action
Ensures no deprivation by arbitrary executive action; requires a valid law. However, no protection against valid legislative action.
Remedy Pathways
Cannot directly move SC under Art 32. Can approach High Court under Art 226 or SC via appeal/SLP.
Compensation under Article 300A – An Evolving Jurisprudence
Article 300A does not explicitly mention the right to compensation if property is acquired. Theoretically, the legislature could pass a law without providing for compensation.
However, the Supreme Court has, in recent judgments (e.g., Indian Handicrafts Emporium vs. Union of India (2003), K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka (2011), Hari Krishna Mandir Trust vs. State of Maharashtra (2020), and Vidya Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2020)), interpreted "authority of law" to imply that the law must be fair, just, and reasonable. Depriving property without any or with illusory compensation might be arbitrary and violative of the rule of law (which is part of Article 14).
This indicates that while the quantum of compensation may not be as rigidly justiciable as it was under the original Art 31, the principle of providing some form of just recompense is increasingly being read into Article 300A as part of rule of law and fairness.
3. Prelims-ready Notes
Key Transformations
- Original Position (FR): Art 19(1)(f) & Art 31 (public purpose + compensation).
- Conflict with Reforms: Led to 1st, 4th, 17th, 25th Amds. & addition of Art 31A, 31B (9th Sch), 31C.
- Key Cases: Bela Banerjee (just compensation), Golak Nath (FRs unamendable), Bank Nationalisation, Privy Purses. Kesavananda (Right to Property not basic structure).
- 44th Amendment Act, 1978: Abolished FR status. Deleted Art 19(1)(f) & Art 31. Inserted Art 300A in Part XII.
Current Status (Art 300A)
- Constitutional Right & Legal Right.
- NOT part of Basic Structure.
- Protects vs. executive action without law; NOT vs. valid legislative action.
- No direct appeal to SC under Art 32; HC under Art 226 possible.
- No explicit guaranteed compensation in Art 300A (but SC reads fairness into "authority of law").
- Art 31A, 31B, 31C still exist (protect certain laws).
4. Mains-ready Analytical Notes
Rationale for Demoting from FR
- Remove obstacle to agrarian reforms & socio-economic legislation (DPSPs).
- End frequent legislature-judiciary litigation.
- Prioritize social justice & community interest over absolute individual property rights.
Significance of Article 300A
- Property remains constitutionally protected; State cannot arbitrarily dispossess.
- "Authority of law" implies valid, just, fair, and reasonable law (judicially interpreted).
- Judiciary's role in ensuring non-arbitrary deprivation continues.
Compensation under 300A - Evolving Jurisprudence
- Absence of "compensation" deliberate for flexibility.
- SC trend: "Authority of law" implies fair, reasonable, non-illusory compensation (K.T. Plantation, Vidya Devi).
- Reflects "living" nature of Constitution, balancing state power with individual rights.
Impact on Governance & Development
- Easier land acquisition for public infrastructure.
- Led to new laws like LARR Act, 2013, focusing on fair compensation & R&R.
- Articles 31A, 31B, 31C (post-Minerva Mills scope) remain relevant for protecting land reform laws.
5. Current Affairs & Recent Developments
SC Judgments: Human/Constitutional Right
Courts continue to emphasize that though not an FR, the right to property under Article 300A is a valuable constitutional and human right.
- Deprivation must strictly adhere to due procedure by valid law.
- Compensation should be fair, especially for ordinary citizens.
- Example: Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Anr. vs. Bimal Kumar Shah & Ors. (Jan 2024) – SC reiterated state cannot take land without due process, emphasizing Art 300A.
Land Acquisition Disputes & Debates
Litigation continues under the LARR Act, 2013, concerning adequacy of compensation, social impact assessment, and rehabilitation measures.
- Large infrastructure projects lead to debates about balancing developmental needs with property rights and livelihoods.
- The interpretation of "fair compensation" under LARR Act often aligns with broader judicial views on Article 300A.
6. UPSC Previous Year Questions (PYQs)
Prelims MCQs
Q1. What is the position of the Right to Property in India? (UPSC CSE 2021)
- (a) Legal right available to citizens only
- (b) Legal right available to any person
- (c) Fundamental Right available to citizens only
- (d) Neither Fundamental Right nor legal right
Q2. The 44th Amendment to the Constitution of India: (UPSC CSE 2012, adapted)
- 1. Deleted the Right to Property from the list of Fundamental Rights.
- 2. Made the Right to Property a legal right under Article 300-A.
- 3. Declared that the Right to Property is part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
- Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- (a) 1 only
- (b) 1 and 2 only
- (c) 2 and 3 only
- (d) 1, 2 and 3
Q3. Which Constitutional Amendment Act removed the Right to Property from the list of Fundamental Rights?
- (a) 25th Amendment Act
- (b) 42nd Amendment Act
- (c) 44th Amendment Act
- (d) 1st Amendment Act
Mains Questions
Q1. Trace the evolution of the Right to Property under the Indian Constitution. Why was it removed from the list of Fundamental Rights, and what is its current status?
Direction/Value Points:
- Introduction: Right to Property's contentious history.
- Original Position: Art 19(1)(f) & Art 31 (as FRs). Explain scope.
- Conflict with Socio-Economic Reforms: Zamindari abolition, land ceilings.
- Legislative-Judicial Tussle: Key amendments (1st, 4th, 17th, 25th) and key cases (Bela Banerjee, Golak Nath, Bank Nationalisation, Kesavananda).
- Reasons for Removal as FR: To facilitate reforms, end litigation, prioritize social justice.
- 44th Amendment Act, 1978: Deletion of Art 19(1)(f) & Art 31; Insertion of Art 300A.
- Current Status (Art 300A): Constitutional/legal right, not FR. Protects vs. executive action without law, not vs. valid legislative action. No direct SC appeal under Art 32. Compensation not explicitly guaranteed but judicially implied as fair.
- Conclusion: The evolution reflects a shift in constitutional priorities, with its current status aiming to balance individual property rights with state's developmental objectives.
Q2. "The Right to Property in India, though no longer a Fundamental Right, continues to be a significant constitutional right." Discuss the implications of this statement, especially with regard to the State's power of eminent domain and the citizen's right to fair compensation.
Direction/Value Points:
- Introduction: Acknowledge demotion from FR but affirm its constitutional status under Art 300A.
- Significance of being a Constitutional Right (Art 300A):
- Protection against arbitrary executive dispossession ("save by authority of law").
- "Authority of law" implies valid, fair, just, reasonable law.
- State's Power of Eminent Domain:
- Inherent power, implicitly recognized by Art 300A but subjected to "authority of law."
- Citizen's Right to Fair Compensation (Post-44th Amendment):
- Art 300A itself is silent on compensation.
- Evolving Judicial Interpretation: SC reads fairness into "authority of law." Deprivation without any or illusory compensation may be arbitrary and violate rule of law (linked to Art 14).
- LARR Act, 2013, now statutorily provides for fair compensation, SIA, R&R.
- Implications:
- State can acquire property by law for public purpose.
- Law must be valid and procedure fair.
- Judiciary ensures some form of fair/just recompense through interpretation of Art 300A or by testing the acquisition law against Art 14.
- Conclusion: Article 300A ensures property rights are not illusory. Judiciary ensures state's eminent domain power is exercised fairly.