Sc: right to property is a human right


New Delhi, October 4
Widening the scope of human rights, the Supreme Court has ruled that people’s right to own property fell very much within the domain of human rights.
Pointing out that human rights were “gaining a multi-faceted dimension,” a Bench comprising Justices Dalveer Bhandari and Deepak Verma observed that these rights had already covered the “individual rights such as right to health, right to livelihood, right to shelter and employment etc.”

“Right to property is also considered very much a part of the new dimension now,” the Bench held in a verdict that questioned the rationale behind the law on adverse possession under which any person in illegal occupation of a property for 12 years could claim legal ownership of it. Providing yet another new dimension to human rights, the SC opined that “even claim of adverse possession has to be read in that context.” This clearly implied that depriving an individual of his property amounted to violation of his human rights.

Source: http://www.tribuneindia.com/2011/20111005/main6.htm

It appears the Supreme Court website has not been updated with judgements done till now in October. Will upload the this judgement once it gets uploaded on Supreme Court website.

 
Reply   
 

Dear Sir,

       'Right to property' is give in Article 300A in part 12 of  The Constitution of India. It is the right not defined as the fundamental right. But..... it is time to set it in the Part 3 of the costitution fundamental rights  and read with Article 21 includes right to property and with some ristrictions  as the law in progress by this judgment as  I read given by the supreme coourt.

 Who are Agree with me ?

 
Reply   
 



The right to property is indeed enumerated under Article 300A while its explicit enumeration was removed from Article 19(1)(f). In my opinion the legislature under malafide mischief/ tinkering had done this without applying mind with the basic structure of the Constitution to suit political motives .


The enumeration of right to property under Article 300A or removal of Article 19(1)(f) does not extinguish this right under Article 21. Sections 96 to 106 IPC are nothing but corrolary to Article 21. Under Section 103 one can even cause death in defense of his property. How is this possible unless Section 103 IPC is in confirmation with right to property under Article 21?


Moreover we need to understand that Constitution is not creating, making or granting any fundamental rights in Part III. It is merely guaranteeing the already existing fundamental rights being enjoyed by the society from infringment by the State. In order to clear the confusion, if Article 19(1)(f) is inserted back, that is good. But if it is not done, if courts wisely interpret Article 21, that will also serve the purpose since all the fundamental rights under Article 19 are emnanting from Article 21. For example arms  are our fundamental right guaranteed under both Articles 19 and 21. I have tried to explain this at http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/RKBA-guaranteed-under-Articles-19-and-21-of-Constitution-36011.asp

 
Reply   
 
Practicing Advocate since 1986

Right to Property was not   fundamentla right but it is contitutional right  as per Article 300-A, and Human Right. As per the Philosophy of the Constitution of India to render Socail Justice that is justice, Socail, Economic, Political  to the  People of  India equalize conomic diaparities between Poor and Rich it has been suggested to OBOLISH IMMOVABLE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE OF INDIA SO THAT CORRUPTION WILL BE ERADICATED AND  WELFARE SOCIALIST, SOCIAL JUSTICE  DEVEOPLED STATE OF INDIA WILL BE ESTABLISHED AS PER THE PHILOSPHY OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

 
Reply   
 

LEAVE A REPLY


    

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  



 

  Search Forum








×

Menu

Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query
CrPC MASTERCLASS!     |    x