Article 31

Article 31, as originally enacted in the Constitution of India, guaranteed the Right to Property as a Fundamental Right. It was intended to protect individuals against arbitrary deprivation of property by the State and to ensure that any acquisition of private property was carried out only by lawful authority and with compensation. However, due to its implications on socio-economic reforms—especially land redistribution and agrarian changes—it became one of the most frequently amended and debated provisions in constitutional history. The right to property was ultimately repealed as a Fundamental Right in 1978 and reclassified as a Constitutional Right under Article 300A.

Historical Background

At the time of independence, property ownership was concentrated in the hands of a few, particularly landlords and large landholders. The framers of the Constitution sought to protect private property but also aimed to achieve economic equality and social justice through land reforms. This created tension between individual rights and the State’s obligation to implement welfare measures.
Article 31 was, therefore, initially framed to balance these competing interests, stating that “No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.” It also provided for compensation in cases of land acquisition for public purposes.

Evolution and Repeal

Over the years, Article 31 was subject to several constitutional amendments due to recurring conflicts between property owners and the government’s land reform initiatives. The key turning point came with the Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, which repealed Article 31 and removed the right to property from the list of Fundamental Rights.
Simultaneously, Article 300A was inserted into Part XII (Chapter IV) of the Constitution, thereby transforming the right to property into a constitutional right rather than a fundamental one.

Article 300A: The Present Constitutional Provision

Article 300A reads: “No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.”
This provision continues to protect individuals from unlawful deprivation of property but lacks the constitutional supremacy and enforceability associated with Fundamental Rights. The shift signifies that:

• Property can still be legally acquired by the State, provided a valid law authorises it.
• The courts cannot invoke Fundamental Rights jurisdiction (under Article 32) for property-related grievances.
• The scope of judicial intervention is limited to examining whether a valid law exists and whether due process has been followed.

Significance of the Repeal

The repeal of Article 31 had profound social and economic implications. Its primary objectives were:

• Facilitating Land Reforms: It enabled the State to redistribute agricultural land among the poor and landless without facing extensive legal challenges.
• Promoting Social Justice: By limiting the absolute nature of property ownership, the amendment advanced the Directive Principles of State Policy, especially those related to equitable distribution of resources.
• Strengthening Legislative Flexibility: The government gained greater freedom to enact laws for public welfare, urban development, and industrialisation without being constrained by property-related litigation.

Judicial Interpretation and Case Laws

Over time, both before and after the repeal, courts have elaborated on the meaning and scope of property rights in India.
Before the Repeal:

• K.K. Verma v. Union of India (1954): The Supreme Court upheld that the State could acquire property as long as such acquisition was lawful and accompanied by compensation.
• State of West Bengal v. Union of India (1964): The Court addressed the limits of State authority over property, observing that public purpose must justify acquisition.

After the Repeal:

• Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1982): The Court clarified that the right to property under Article 300A is not absolute and may be regulated or restricted by law, provided such law is not arbitrary.
• L.I.C. of India v. Consumer Education & Research Centre (1995): The Supreme Court reaffirmed that although property rights are not fundamental, they remain protected under the rule of law.
• M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987): The Court recognised that environmental considerations may override individual property rights in the broader interest of public welfare.

Related Constitutional Provisions

Before its repeal, the right to property was protected under two provisions:

• Article 19(1)(f): Guaranteed citizens the right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property.
• Article 31: Protected individuals from deprivation of property except by authority of law.

Both these provisions were deleted by the Forty-Fourth Amendment (1978). The right to property now exists solely under Article 300A, which, although weaker in status, continues to safeguard against unlawful acquisition.

Legislative Framework After the Repeal

Following the repeal of Article 31, several statutory laws were enacted or updated to regulate land acquisition and property rights in alignment with constitutional mandates:

• The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LARR Act): Replaced the colonial-era Land Acquisition Act of 1894, ensuring fair compensation, rehabilitation, and transparency in land acquisition processes.
• State Land Reform Acts: Various states implemented legislation aimed at redistributing agricultural land and improving tenure security for farmers.

These laws collectively ensure that property acquisition serves a public purpose, follows due legal process, and provides fair compensation to affected individuals.

Impact of the Repeal

The transformation of the right to property from a fundamental to a constitutional right brought several notable changes:

• The State gained greater flexibility to acquire land for infrastructure, industrial, and developmental projects.
• The judiciary’s role shifted from protecting individual property as an inviolable right to ensuring legality and fairness in acquisition.
• Property owners retained protection against unlawful seizure but lost the ability to challenge acquisitions as violations of Fundamental Rights.
• The balance between individual ownership and collective welfare tilted towards the latter, aligning with India’s socialist objectives.

Current Status of Property Rights in India

Today, property rights in India are governed primarily by Article 300A and relevant land laws. While individuals cannot claim the right to property as a Fundamental Right, they can still approach courts under Article 226 (High Courts) for redress in cases of unlawful deprivation. The current framework ensures that:

• No one is deprived of property without due process and lawful authority.
• The State’s power of acquisition is exercised for legitimate public purposes.
• Fair compensation and procedural fairness are guaranteed under statutory law.

Significance in Contemporary Context

The right to property, though no longer fundamental, remains a critical component of India’s constitutional and economic landscape. It supports:

• Economic development and investment, by providing legal certainty regarding ownership and compensation.
• Public welfare and urban expansion, by allowing lawful acquisition of land for infrastructure and public projects.
• Social justice, by facilitating equitable redistribution and resource access.