Is right to property is a fundamental right in india

UNEMPLOYED

C.O.I. PART III: Arts 12 to 35 ensure the fundamental rights. When the right to property shifted from 19(1) (g) to 300A, the intention of the legislature is very clear, it is no more a fundamental right but a constitutional right. Fundamental rights are also sharable, when crash with others fundamental rights, not against the public policy and public interest.

 

One individual may complain about the violation, encroachment, or may claim 'a right' as his fundamental right. Complains be entertained primarily by a HC and finally by SC. The last word will be said by the SC.

 
Reply   
 

One needs to apply mind while reading the Constitution. It is an undeniable fact that the fundamental rights under Article 19 are coming from Article 21. Also right to property must be considered having regard to the principles contained in Article 19(1)(g).

 

The mere fact that explicit enumeration of  fundamental right has been removed from Article 19 does not mean it has automatically got removed from Article 21 as well. If the Legislature while making the 44th amendment did not apply its mind that removing explicit enumeration from Article 19 does not automatically remove the same from Article 21, it does not mean that it got extinguished from Article 21. Therefore mere "intention" of legislature is not sufficient. Rather legislature acted ultra vires without application of mind.

 

SC has recently said that property is a human right under Article 21. It clearly means it is a fundamental right. This discussion is not a question of complaint by any individual but reading and understanding the Constitution in an honest, unbiased and unprejudiced manner. In light of the Supreme Court's ruling, in the Maneka Gandhi case, which held that each and every provision of the Constitution had to be interpreted in a just, fair and reasonable manner.

 
Reply   
 


Advocate

 Status of fundametal right for the property is done away with   by the amendment  in the constitution , and now it is not more than a  civil right 

 
Reply   
 
Advocate

Yes, the Constitution says so as pointed out by adv Bharat Chugh, but what about the existence of Capitalist in Socialist pattern of the Constitution?

 
Reply   
 

The problem is that Supreme Court sometimes does not interpret the Constitution boldly the way it should. Instead sometimes behaves in a spineless manner not expected from Supreme Court. Supreme Court itself has held that rights in Article 19 are flowing from Article 21. If explicit enumeration of a right is removed from Article 19 due to some reasons of vote bank politics, does it mean that the same right under Article 21 gets extinguished? And also what about the "basic structure" of the Constitution?


Shall we ever get some bold and honest judgments from our Supreme Court like by US Supreme Court in City of Charleston v. The Kanawha Players? It has been discussed here http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Everyday-violation-of-right-to-free-speech-57084.asp

 
Reply   
 
Advocate

Don’t forget the courageous judgment of Sandra D. O'Connor, Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

 
Reply   
 
advocate/counsel supreme court

Art 19 reinstated the right to property along with Art 300A, you can move the right under Art 226 or Art 32

 
Reply   
 
student

No, 

It is not a fundamental right any more but has been reduced to mere constitutional( Legal) Right and is place under Art 300 A by 42 amd act.

 
Reply   
 
student

No, 

It is not a fundamental right any more but has been reduced to mere constitutional( Legal) Right and is place under Art 300 A by 42 amd act.

 
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 Course!     |    x