Introduction
The Right to Property was originally a Fundamental Right under Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31 of the Indian Constitution. However, it underwent a significant transformation with the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1978, which removed it from the list of Fundamental Rights and made it a constitutional legal right under Article 300A.
Historical Background
At the time of Independence, the Indian Constitution guaranteed citizens the right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property. However, this right often came into conflict with the State’s socialist agenda of land reform and redistribution. The frequent legal challenges to land acquisition laws pushed the government to redefine the scope of this right.
Key Amendments before the 44th:
- 1st Amendment (1951) – Allowed reasonable restrictions on the right to property.
- 4th Amendment (1955) – Enabled the State to acquire property without judicial review of compensation adequacy.
- 25th Amendment (1971) – Replaced the word “compensation” with “amount,” reducing judicial scrutiny.
- 42nd Amendment (1976) – Further curtailed property rights.
The 44th Amendment, 1978
- Removed Articles 19(1)(f) and 31, effectively taking away the Right to Property as a Fundamental Right.
- Introduced Article 300A: “No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.”
- Made the Right to Property a legal/constitutional right, not enforceable under Article 32 before the Supreme Court.
- Now, challenges must be raised under Article 226 before High Courts.
Get in-depth updates on Supreme Court and High Court rulings at legallypresent.in.
Implications of the 44th Amendment
- The State can now acquire property for public purposes without facing intense legal scrutiny.
- Citizens cannot claim violation of a Fundamental Right in matters of property.
- Property rights are still protected, but only under statutory laws, and not as a guaranteed right under Part III of the Constitution.
Current Position
- The Right to Property under Article 300A protects individuals against arbitrary deprivation of property.
- Compensation is still necessary, but its adequacy or fairness is not subject to Fundamental Rights-based judicial review.
- This shift strengthened the State’s hand in land acquisition, urban development, and infrastructure projects.
Judicial Pronouncements
- K.T. Plantation v. State of Karnataka (2011): Affirmed that the State must act fairly while acquiring property, even if it’s no longer a Fundamental Right.
- State of W.B. v. Bela Banerjee (1954) (pre-44th context): Established early principles around “just compensation.”
Conclusion
The Right to Property has evolved from being a core Fundamental Right to a qualified legal right. This transition reflects India’s commitment to social justice and planned development, balancing individual interests with broader societal goals.
For internships, legal events, and law student opportunities, visit lawfer.in.