Home
Indian polity
POLITY-UPSC

Article 31 & Article 19(1)(f) | Right to Property

Amith

 🔹 Article 19(1)(f) → Freedom to own property

  • It gave every citizen the right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property.

  • Example: I can buy land, keep land, or sell land freely.

  • It was a general freedom (like right to speech, right to move, etc.).

🔹 Article 31 → Protection from government taking your property

  • It said “No person shall be deprived of his property except by authority of law.”

  • If the State wanted to take your property (for roads, dams, industries), it had to:

    1. Pass a law for it, and

    2. Pay compensation.

  • Example: The government wants to build a new highway.

    • They cannot just enter your land and take it.

    • First, there must be a law that allows them to do so.

    • Then, they will send you a notice and pay you fair compensation.

🔹 Why both existed?

  • Article 19(1)(f): Protected your freedom to buy/sell/own property (personal use).

  • Article 31: Protected you from state acquisition of your property (compulsory takeover).

👉 Together, they gave a complete shield:

  • One guaranteed your freedom to own.

  • The other guaranteed safety from unfair takeover.

🔹 The Problem 🤔

  • Whenever the government tried to do land reforms (take big landlords’ land for redistribution to poor), landlords used both rights to challenge it in court.

  • Courts often struck down government laws saying → “This violates Fundamental Right to Property.”

  • Result = Endless Govt. vs Judiciary fight.

✅ That is why, in 1978 (44th Amendment), both Article 19(1)(f) & Article 31 were removed, and replaced with Article 300A → Right to Property = Legal Right.

🔹 What is the Right to Property?

  • Meaning:
    The Right to Property means every person has the right to own, keep, use, and sell their property (like land, house, shop, etc.), and no one—including the government—can take it away without legal process and compensation.

  • Original Position (1950):

    • It was a Fundamental Right under:

      • Article 19(1)(f): Citizens have the right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property.

      • Article 31: No person shall be deprived of property except by law + compensation.

  • Problem:
    This became the most controversial Fundamental Right, because:

    • Rich landlords used it to block land reforms.

    • Government and Judiciary kept fighting about “how much compensation is fair.”

  • Change (44th Amendment Act, 1978):

    • Right to Property was removed from Fundamental Rights.

    • A new Article 300A was added → Right to Property is now a Legal Right, not a Fundamental Right.

🔹 Example:

Imagine the government wants to build a highway through some farmland.

  • Before 1978:
    A landlord could say → “This is my Fundamental Right, you can’t take my land. I’ll go straight to Supreme Court under Article 32.”
    This delayed projects.

  • After 1978 (now):
    The government can acquire the land by law + with compensation.
    If the person is unhappy, he can go to High Court (legal right), but not claim it as a Fundamental Right.

✅ So today, Right to Property = Legal Right (Article 300A).
It protects you from illegal land grabbing by the government, but it does not give you the supreme power of a Fundamental Right.

🏠 Right to Property in India

1. Original Position (Before 1978)

  • The Right to Property was a Fundamental Right.

  • It appeared in two places:

    • Article 19(1)(f): Freedom to acquire, hold, and dispose of property.

    • Article 31: Protection against deprivation of property except by law & with compensation.

👉 Example: If the govt. wants your farmland for a dam → It must pass a law + give you compensation.

2. Why Problematic?

  • It became the most controversial Fundamental Right.

  • Reason: Clash between government & judiciary.

    • Govt. wanted land reforms (to take land from zamindars, redistribute to poor).

    • Landlords challenged this using Articles 19(1)(f) & 31.

    • Courts often sided with landlords → striking down govt. reforms.

👉 Result = Endless tug of war (Govt. vs Judiciary).

3. Constitutional Amendments on Property Rights

To solve this, many amendments came:

  • 1st, 4th, 7th, 25th, 39th, 40th, 42nd Amendments.

  • These led to Articles 31A, 31B, 31C → Protecting certain land reform & welfare laws from being struck down.

4. Major Change → 44th Amendment (1978)

  • Removed property as a Fundamental Right.

  • Deleted Art. 19(1)(f) and Art. 31.

  • Introduced Article 300A in Part XII → “No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.”

  • Meaning → Right to Property became only a Legal Right, not a Fundamental Right.

👉 If violated, you cannot go directly to Supreme Court under Article 32.
👉 You can only go to High Court/Supreme Court under ordinary law.

5. Debate: Should it return as Fundamental Right?

Arguments For Reinstating as Fundamental Right

  • Helps poor & tribal communities (they lack legal/political resources).

  • Protects people from forced land acquisition & unfair compensation.

  • Direct access to Supreme Court.

  • Prevents govt. misuse of power.

  • Reduces land-related conflicts & riots.

👉 Example: If a poor villager’s land is taken without fair price, he could directly move SC if it was still a FR.

Arguments Against (keep as Legal Right only)

  • Still protected under Constitution (Art. 300A).

  • Makes land acquisition easier for public projects.

  • Avoids Govt. vs Judiciary fights again.

  • Violations can be challenged in High Court, so justice is possible.

6. Right to Property as a Human Right

  • SC Judgments: Declared property as a human right (cannot be taken without due process).

  • Govt. cannot misuse “adverse possession” to claim private land.

  • Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), Article 17: Recognizes right to property.

  • Fair Balance Test: Property can be acquired, but without compensation = unjust & unconstitutional.

7. Related Articles (31A, 31B, 31C)

👉 First remember the rule:
Normally, if any law violates Equality (Art. 14) or Freedom (Art. 19), the courts can strike it down.
That is the basic power of Judicial Review.

But, our Constitution-makers saw a problem.
They said: ‘What if every time we make a social reform law, the rich people keep running to courts? Then reforms will never succeed!’

So, the Constitution itself created some special protections.
It said: ‘In these specific cases, Fundamental Rights will not apply. Courts should not interfere.’
These special protections are what we call — Exceptions to Fundamental Rights.

🔹 Article 31A – Protection of Certain Laws

“Friends, imagine the government passes a law saying: ‘All big landlords who own 500 acres must give excess land to the poor.’
Landlords rush to Supreme Court and say → ‘This is against my Fundamental Right to Property!’

To stop this never-ending battle, the government secretly (or cleverly 😅) brought Article 31A. It said:
➡️ ‘Such land reform laws cannot be challenged in court under Article 14 (equality) or 19 (freedom).’

So after 1951, landlords lost that weapon. Courts could no longer easily strike down land reform laws.”

📖 Background – Why Article 31A was created?

  • In the original Constitution, Article 31 (Right to Property) + Article 19(1)(f) gave very strong protection to property owners (mostly big landlords/zamindars).

  • Whenever the government passed land reform laws (like abolition of Zamindari, redistribution of land to poor farmers), landlords immediately went to court and said:

    • “This violates my Right to Property (Art. 31)!”

    • “This violates my freedom to hold property (Art. 19(1)(f))!”

  • Courts often sided with landlords. Result → Land reforms were blocked.

⚡ Government’s Response

  • Nehru government wanted to implement socialist land reforms quickly.

  • So, through the 1st Amendment Act (1951), it added:

    • Article 31A → To protect land reform laws from being struck down under Articles 14 & 19.

    • Article 31B + Ninth Schedule → To give extra safety by directly listing such laws in a “safe zone”.

👉 Example: If Karnataka govt. passes a law to redistribute agricultural land from landlords to poor farmers, landlords can’t challenge it saying “violation of equality/freedom” because Article 31A protects it.

🔹 Note: If land is below statutory ceiling (small farmers’ land), govt. must pay market value compensation.

🔹 Article 31B – Ninth Schedule

📖 Why Article 31B was needed?

  • Even after adding Article 31A (1951), landlords and companies were still rushing to courts.

  • Courts could still strike down some land reform laws as “unconstitutional” (against Fundamental Rights like Equality or Property).

  • So the Government thought: “We need a stronger protection.”

That’s why they added Article 31B + Ninth Schedule in the 1st Amendment Act, 1951.

🔹 What does Article 31B say?

  • Any law placed inside the Ninth Schedule → cannot be challenged in court for violating Fundamental Rights.

  • Even if the court had already struck it down earlier, by putting it into the Ninth Schedule, it would become valid again (retrospective effect).

👨‍🏫 Example for Students

“Suppose a State passes a law taking away extra land from landlords and giving it to poor farmers.
The landlord goes to court → Court says: ‘This law is unconstitutional, it violates Fundamental Rights.’

Now, the Government puts this law into the Ninth Schedule under Article 31B.
👉 Immediately, the law becomes valid, and the court can’t touch it.”

So it’s like giving those laws a “permanent safe locker” 🗝️ inside the Constitution.

⚡ But here’s the twist (later development)

  • Originally, all Ninth Schedule laws had full immunity.

  • But in I.R. Coelho case (2007), Supreme Court said:

    • “Laws in the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973 (Kesavananda Bharati date) can still be reviewed if they damage Basic Structure (like judicial review, equality, etc.).”

So now, Ninth Schedule is not 100% safe.

✅ In short:

  • 31A → Protects 5 categories of reform laws.

  • 31B + Ninth Schedule → Creates a “safe locker” for specific laws chosen by Parliament.

🔹 Article 31C – Protecting DPSPs (Directive Principles)

📖 Why Article 31C was added?

  • Even after 31A (general protection) and 31B (Ninth Schedule safe locker), many Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) – like giving equal distribution of wealth – could not be implemented easily.

  • Because landlords, companies, and rich people kept going to court saying: “This violates our Fundamental Rights (Article 14 → Equality, Article 19 → Freedom, Article 31 → Property).”

  • So, in 25th Amendment Act, 1971, Government added Article 31C.

🔹 What does Article 31C say?

  • If a law is made to implement DPSP Article 39(b) or 39(c):

    • 39(b) → ownership & control of material resources should be distributed for common good.

    • 39(c) → prevent concentration of wealth in a few hands.

  • Then that law cannot be challenged in court for violating Article 14, 19, or 31.

👉 Basically: DPSPs (39b & 39c) will win over Fundamental Rights (14, 19, 31).

👨‍🏫 Example

“Suppose the Government makes a law:
Big industries producing coal & steel will now be taken over by the State and used for common people.

A businessman says: ‘This violates my right to equality and freedom of business.’

Under Article 31C, the Court will say: ‘Sorry, you can’t challenge. The law is protected because it is for public welfare (DPSP 39b & 39c).’ ✅”

⚡ The Twist (Court Judgments)

  • Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973):

    • Court said → First part of 31C (protecting 39b & 39c laws) is valid.

    • But second part (which blocked courts from checking whether law really implements DPSP) is invalid. Courts must have power of judicial review.

  • 42nd Amendment (1976):

    • Extended 31C to all DPSPs (not just 39b & 39c).

    • Meaning → Any DPSP law would override Fundamental Rights.

  • Minerva Mills Case (1980):

    • SC struck this down.

    • Restored balance → Only 39(b) & (c) laws get protection, not all DPSPs.

✅ In short:

  • 31A → Protects land reform + 5 categories of laws.

  • 31B → Ninth Schedule = safe locker.

  • 31C → Laws for 39(b) & 39(c) DPSPs are safe even if they violate FRs (14, 19, 31).

Post a Comment