Akshay 23 February 2020
Thank you for your question
Follow this link:-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_rights_in_India
Hope this will help you
175B083 Mahesh P S 10 December 2020
Article 31 with sub heading “Right to Property” has been omitted by the Constitution Forty Fourth Amendment Act 1978. Article 31(1) has been shifted to article 300A as a new insertion in Chapter IV in part XII of the constitution. The shifting of Article 31(1) and omitting Article 31 signify that fundamental right to property is abolished.
The right to property under the Indian constitution tried to approach the question of how to handle property and pressures relating to it by trying to balance the right to property with the right to compensation for its acquisition through an absolute fundamental right to property and then balancing the same with reasonable restrictions and adding a further fundamental right o compensation in case the properties are acquired by the state. This was exemplified by Article 19(1)(f) balanced by Article 19(5) and the compensation article in Article 31. This was an interesting development influenced by the British of the idea Eminent Domain but overall it struck an interesting balance whereby it recognized the power of the state to acquire property, but for the first time in the history of India for a thousand years or more, it recognized the individual’s right to property against the state.
After 1978, in the area of property, there were only four constitutional provisions i.e. A. 31, 31B, 31C and 300A. Though A. 31A, 31B and 31C are included in the chapter of fundamental rights they cannot be called as fundamental rights in the real sense, as they do not confer fundamental right but impose certain restriction on right to property. The main object of these provisions was to provide immunity to various laws curtailing property rights.
The object behind the amendment is considered to abolish the large land holdings with zamindars and other rich people and to distribute it to the landless peasants. But now when the object seems to be almost achieved the importance of this amendment is in question.
44th constitutional amendment eliminated the right to property as a fundamental right. After 44th amendment right to property became a statutory right. Article 31 which contained right to property was shifted to Article 300. This transfer was done to affirm that no person is deprived of his property save by the authority of law. The amendment expanded the power of the state to appropriate property for social welfare purposes. In other words, the amendment bestowed upon the Indian socialist state a licence to indulge in what Fredric Bastiat termed legal plunder. This is one of the classic examples when the law has been perverted in order to make plunder look just and sacred to many consciences. When studying the emergence of clause A, B and C of Article 31, a major focus should be given to Doctrine of Eminent Domain.
According to this doctrine state can acquire any private property and the acquisition will be justified if it is for public use and the use can be understood beyond doubt. Essential ingredients of this doctrine are property is taken for public use and compensation is paid to the owner.
Along with the doctrine of Eminent Domain, various cases which are very important to complete the study of the right to property are also analysed in this project. The article 31A, B and C were added through amendments.
Sudhir Kumar (Retd Govt Officer) 15 December 2020
you may better use RTI to know this.
Mansi Aggarwal 13 January 2021
Ishaan 07 March 2021
The right to property was originally provided under Article 19 and 31 of the Indian Constitution. Article 31 provided that “no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law” and it also provided for compensation to someone whose property has been taken for public purposes.
There were numerous amendments made to the provision before it was repealed. Article 31A was inserted by the Constitution first amendment act, 1951. In the famous fundamental right case (1974 3 SCC 225), the supreme court observed that right to property does not come under the ambit of basic structure of the constitution and therefore, Parliament can acquire or take away private property of persons for concerned good and in the public interest.
The 44th amendment act of 1978 scrapped the right to property from the list of fundamental rights as article 31 was repealed from the constitution. Right to property ceased to be a fundamental right and now become only a legal right under article 300A.
Consequently, if any legislation made a law rejecting an individual of his property, there would be no obligation with respect to the State to pay anything as fixed compensation. Moreover, the oppressed individual would likewise reserve no privilege to move the court under Article 32 because of the right to property no longer being a fundamental right, however it would in still be a legal right.
In the case of Indian Handicraft Emporium v. Union of India (appeal [civil] 7533 of 1997), the supreme court observed that right to property is human right and a constitutional right under article 300A but is no longer a fundamental right.
Reasons for removal of Article 31-
1. The Indian government wanted to bring land reforms and encourage social justice.
2. It aimed to establish equal distribution of resources.
3. Furthermore it was essential for the development of India to abolish it. (so that the government could confiscate public property for the welfare of people like setting up industries or other infrastructure)