Supreme Court Upholds Property Rights in India

January 4, 2025

The Supreme Court of India recently reaffirmed the significance of property rights within the constitutional framework. The court’s ruling brought into light that while the right to property is no longer a fundamental right, it remains a constitutional right under Article 300A. This ruling arose from a case involving long-overdue compensation for land acquired for the Bengaluru-Mysuru Infrastructure Corridor Project. The justices emphasised the need for adequate compensation and legal authority before depriving individuals of their property.

Context of Property Rights in India

The right to property was originally a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31 of the Constitution of India. These provisions allowed citizens to acquire, hold, and dispose of property without arbitrary deprivation. However, the 44th Amendment in 1978 removed this status, relegating it to a legal right under Article 300A.

Article 300A

Article 300A states that no person shall be deprived of their property save by authority of law. This legal right ensures that any acquisition of property must follow established legal procedures, including the provision of fair compensation to the owner. The amendment aimed to facilitate land acquisition for public purposes while protecting individual rights.

Supreme Court’s Interpretation of Property Rights

The Supreme Court has ruled that the state cannot acquire property without adhering to proper procedures. The court emphasised that the right to property is intertwined with human rights, including the rights to health, livelihood, and shelter. This interpretation reinforces the need for the state to respect individual rights while pursuing public interests.

Judicial Precedents on Property Rights

Several landmark cases have shaped the interpretation of property rights in India. In *A K Gopalan v. State of Madras* (1950), the court upheld the state’s power to seize property for public order. The *Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala* (1973) case established the basic structure doctrine, indirectly influencing the redefinition of property rights. In *Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat* (1995), the court ruled that the right to property is not part of the Constitution’s basic structure.

Implications of the Recent Judgment

The recent judgment puts stress on the obligation of the state to provide prompt and adequate compensation to landowners. The court condemned the Karnataka government for its delays, stating that justice delayed is justice denied. The judges invoked Article 142 to adjust the valuation date of the land to 2019, ensuring fair compensation reflective of current market values.

Article 300A was introduced by the 44th Amendment in 1978.
The right to property was a fundamental right until 1978.
The *Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd v. Mast Ram* case reinforced the need for timely compensation.
The *Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh* case brought into light state obligations in property rights.
The basic structure doctrine prevents Parliament from altering fundamental rights .

The Role of Eminent Domain

Eminent domain allows the state to acquire private property for public use, but it comes with the obligation to ensure fair compensation. The Supreme Court’s interpretation stresses that this power should not infringe on individual rights without due process. The court’s recent ruling reiterates that the state must act within the constitutional framework when exercising this power.

« Previous Post Next Post »