The Journey of Property Rights in Indian Constitution: From Fundamental Right to Legal Right

India's 44th Amendment Act of 1978 marked a significant shift in the status of property rights entrenched in the nation's Constitution. Originally, the Constitution recognized the right to acquire, possess, and maintain property as a fundamental right. However, this fundamental right was ultimately deemed no longer relevant, and it was restructured into a mere legal right.

Originally Recognized Fundamental Rights

Before the 44th Amendment Act, the Indian Constitution included the fundamental right to property, enshrined in Article 19(1)(f). This right was central to the broader debate about the relationship between rights and directive principles.

Since 1950, India has seen numerous laws that have limited this right. The enforcement of regulations like land acquisition through the Tenancy Act, Land Ceiling Act, and others, curtailed the ability of individuals to freely own and dispose of their property without government intervention.

The Supreme Court's Ruling and the 44th Amendment

In 1973, the Supreme Court of India ruled that the right to property was not a fundamental right within the basic structure of the Constitution. As a result, parliament had the authority to modify this right through amendments.

The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 removed the right to property from the fundamental rights and reclassified it under a new article (Article 300A). This move was substantively significant, as it shifted the nature of the right from a fundamental to a legal right, effectively placing it under the purview of ordinary legislation.

Discussion on Fundamental Rights and Their Evolution

The concept of fundamental rights is not static and varies over time and across different nations. The first attempt at defining such rights was seen in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, a document valid only for Revolutionary France.

Today, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, issued by the United Nations, is the most widely accepted list of human rights, though it is not legally binding. Western nations like the United States recognize fundamental rights differently, such as the right to a decent living, which is not a constitutional right but is recognized at the state level (e.g., California).

The intensity and nature of fundamental rights are determined by national or local constitutions. There is no absolute standard by which such rights can be universally enumerated or recognized.

Conclusion and Future Perspective

The journey of property rights in the Indian Constitution demonstrates the dynamic nature of legal and constitutional rights. It highlights how societal changes and judicial interpretations can lead to the reclassification of rights. As India continues to evolve, so too will its understanding and enshrinement of fundamental and human rights.