The Right to Property in India has undergone significant changes over the years, particularly through constitutional amendments. Here's a detailed overview of its present position:
1. Initial Position (Under Article 31)
- When the Constitution was adopted in 1950, the Right to Property was considered a fundamental right under Article 31. This provided citizens with the right to move the courts if their property was being taken away by the state without due compensation.
- The government could acquire private property for public purposes, but it had to offer fair compensation. However, the property could be forcibly acquired in certain circumstances.
2. The 44th Amendment (1978)
- The 44th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1978 significantly curtailed the scope of the Right to Property.
- It removed the Right to Property from the list of fundamental rights under Article 31 and moved it to Article 300A under the category of legal rights.
- Article 300A now states: "No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law." This means the right to property is now a constitutional right but not a fundamental right, making it less enforceable against the state.
3. Current Position
- The Right to Property today is not a fundamental right but a constitutional right under Article 300A.
- Citizens can still be deprived of their property, but it can only be done through a legal process that is fair and just.
- The state still has the authority to acquire property for public purposes, as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013. In such cases, just compensation must be provided.
- Article 31C (which was originally part of the Constitution to protect laws that aimed to implement the Directive Principles of State Policy, even if they violated fundamental rights) also affects the property rights, allowing for the enactment of laws for the welfare of the public, potentially curbing the property rights for such purposes.
4. Judicial Interpretation
- The judiciary has emphasized that the Right to Property under Article 300A is a constitutional right and is subject to reasonable restrictions.
- In the case of K.K. Verma v. Union of India (1954), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the state’s power to acquire property for public purposes.
- The Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co. Ltd (1996) clarified that the government can acquire property for public purposes as long as compensation is provided.
5. Recent Developments
- While the Right to Property is no longer a fundamental right, it is still well protected as a legal right, ensuring that people cannot be arbitrarily deprived of their property by the government.
- The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013, provides a robust framework for land acquisition, requiring that the state offers fair compensation, resettlement, and rehabilitation for those affected.
Conclusion
The Right to Property is no longer a fundamental right but remains a constitutional right under Article 300A. It is subject to legal procedures and compensation, and the state retains the power to acquire land for public purposes, subject to restrictions. The change from a fundamental right to a legal right was a significant shift in the constitutional framework of India, balancing individual property rights with the need for socio-economic development.
