Property Rights under Constitution of India: Safeguarding Ownership and Legal Protections

In a nation as diverse and dynamic as India, the Constitution serves as the guiding light that upholds the rights and responsibilities of its citizens. Among the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution, property rights hold a significant place, providing legal protections and safeguards for ownership. Let's delve into the intricacies of property rights under the Constitution of India and understand their importance in the legal framework of the country.

The Foundation of Property Rights

Property rights are not just about ownership; they are a reflection of an individual's autonomy and economic freedom. The Constitution of India recognizes the importance of property rights as fundamental rights, ensuring that every citizen has the right to own, use, and dispose of their property without arbitrary interference. These rights are essential for fostering economic growth, encouraging investment, and providing security to property owners.

Constitutional Provisions for Property Rights

The Constitution of India lays down clear provisions regarding property rights in Articles 300A and 19(1)(f). Article 300A guarantees that no person shall be deprived of their property except by authority of law, ensuring that any deprivation of property must be in accordance with legal procedures and cannot be arbitrary. Article 19(1)(f) grants citizens the right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property, emphasizing the importance of property rights as a cornerstone of individual liberty.

Legal Safeguards and Judicial Interpretations

Over the years, the Supreme Court of India has played a crucial role in interpreting and safeguarding property rights through various landmark judgments. The concept of 'eminent domain,' which allows the government to acquire private property for public use with fair compensation, has been a subject of extensive debate and legal scrutiny. The Court's rulings have reaffirmed the balance between the state's authority to acquire property and the individual's right to fair compensation, ensuring that property rights are protected against arbitrary actions.

Balancing Development and Conservation

In a rapidly developing country like India, balancing the need for development with environmental conservation and social justice is a complex challenge. Property rights play a pivotal role in this balance, ensuring that development projects do not infringe upon the rights of landowners or marginalized communities. Legal mechanisms such as land acquisition laws and environmental regulations aim to strike a harmonious balance between economic progress and sustainable development, while upholding the property rights of all stakeholders.

Empowering Citizens Through Property Rights

Property rights are not just legal protections; they are tools for empowerment and economic progress. By securing ownership rights and ensuring fair compensation for land acquisition, the Constitution of India empowers citizens to participate in the country's growth story. Property ownership enables individuals to build assets, access credit, and invest in their future, thereby contributing to overall economic development and social prosperity.

Conclusion

As we navigate the complex landscape of property rights under the Constitution of India, it becomes evident that these rights are not just legal provisions; they are the foundation of individual liberty and economic growth. Upholding property rights ensures a fair and just society where ownership is respected, investments are secure, and development is sustainable. By safeguarding property rights, the Constitution of India reaffirms its commitment to justice, equality, and progress for all its citizens.

Let us cherish and uphold the property rights enshrined in the Constitution as pillars of strength that support the aspirations and livelihoods of every Indian citizen.

Property rights under the Constitution of India form a crucial aspect of legal protections and ownership safeguards for citizens. Understanding the significance of these rights in the broader legal framework of the country sheds light on the principles of autonomy, economic freedom, and social justice enshrined in the Indian Constitution.

In the landmark case of Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Bimal Kumar Shah & Ors (2023), a pivotal ruling by the Supreme Court affirmed the fundamental principles of property rights enshrined in Article 300A of the Indian Constitution,1950.

Source: The Hindu

What was the Outlook of Supreme Court in Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Bimal Kumar Shah & Ors. Case?

Justices PS Narasimha and Aravind Kumar presiding, the Court meticulously delineated the essential sub-rights within the framework of property ownership, emphasizing fair compensation and lawful acquisition conduct.

• SC quashed the decision of Kolkata Municipal Corporation to acquire private land at Narkeldanga North Road to build a public park.

• It said the law does not authorize the body to acquire the land and the acquisition was illegal.

• The decision in Kolkata Municipal Corporation vindicates the prophetic words of Prof. P.K. Tripathi, that in enacting the 44th Amendment and deleting Articles 19(1)(f) and 31, Parliament has unwittingly given the property of a citizen the kind of protection it has never enjoyed before either in British or in independent India.

What are the Major Constitutional Changes Regarding the Right to Property?

• Right to property was the fundamental Right till 1978 provided under 19(1)(f).

• The 44th Amendment entailed the removal of the right to property from Article 19(1)(f) of Part III and its reincorporation as a constitutional right within Article 300-A. Additionally, Article 31, which had been a subject of significant controversy concerning compensation determination, was also expunged.

• Justice K.K. Mathew, a dissenting judge in the Kesavananda Bharati case, said that property ownership bears a direct correlation with civilization's quality and culture.

• He argued against excluding the fundamental right to own and acquire property from the roster of constitutional bedrock, even within the framework of the basic structure doctrine.

• In 1980, a professor asserted in an influential publication that the deletion of Article 31 was a misstep.

• He contended that the power conferred by Entry 42 of the concurrent list pertains to “acquisition” rather than “confiscation”.

• The professor maintained that the explicit inclusion of conditions mandating acquisition solely for public purposes and accompanying compensation within Article 31(2) obviated the necessity of deeming them inherent aspects of the grant itself.

• Article 300A stipulates that no individual shall be deprived of their property except by authority of law.

• According to the professor this signifies that the "law" cannot be deemed valid unless the acquisition or requisition serves a public purpose and incorporates provisions for compensation.

• He maintained that "compensation" would retain the same interpretation as delineated in the Bela Banerjee case, signifying the market value of the property around the time of acquisition.

• In subsequent years following the elimination of Articles 19(1)(f) and 31, the Supreme Court has asserted that the right to property constitutes both a constitutional and a human right.

• In the M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1986), the Court pronounced that for a law to be valid, it must be just, fair, and reasonable. Therefore, despite not being categorized as a fundamental right, any law depriving an individual of their property must adhere to the mandates of Articles 14, 19, and 21.

• The Court in the B.K. Ravichandra v. Union of India (2020) emphasized the striking resemblance between the phrasing of Article 300A and Articles 21 and 265.

• The Court observed that the guarantee enshrined in Article 300A could not be diluted.

What was the Impact of the Constitution 25th Amendment Act on Property Rights?

• In response to the complexities arising from the term "compensation" in Article 31(2), Parliament introduced the Constitution 25th Amendment Act of 1971.

• This amendment replaced "compensation" with "amount," effectively insulating it from judicial interpretation.

• Consequently, property acquisition could proceed under eminent domain, with landowners now entitled to an "amount" rather than "compensation."

• This revision precluded judicial scrutiny of the adequacy of the "amount" provided.

• Kesavananda Bharati v. Union of India (1973) upheld the validity of the Constitution 25th Amendment Act, 1971, the Supreme Court, through interpretation, mitigated its intended impact.

• The majority opinion in Kesavananda Bharati ruled that while the sufficiency of the amount paid could not be judicially reviewed, the courts could still evaluate the relevance of the principles guiding compensation determination.

• After the R.C Cooper v. Union of India (1970), the Parliament was convinced that the right to property remained a formidable impediment to achieving a socialist state, as it was perceived from a socialist standpoint as a bastion of the bourgeoisie.

What are the Sub-Rights of Right to Property?

• Right to Notice of Acquisition:

• The State has a duty to inform the person of its intention to acquire their property through clear, cogent, and meaningful notice.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah (2024) reaffirms the protection of property rights under Article 300A, emphasizing fair compensation and lawful acquisition. Despite legislative changes reducing these rights, the Court upholds their essential role in justice and individual freedoms.