The right to property under the Indian constitution
Main Article Content
Abstract
In India, no fundamental right has given rise to so much litigation between states and individuals than a property right. The Supreme Court of India protected the right to property of individuals under the ambit of fundamental rights but the government under the influence of socialistic philosophy curtailed the right to property as a fundamental right by several amendments. The present chapter tries to analyze the right to property before and after the 44th Amendment 1978. It also tries to find out the reason for the demise of the right to property as a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
References
CAD, Vol. I, pp. 58-60
Ibid
The Advisory Committee, the Sub-Committee on the Fundamental Rights, and the Drafting Committee.
CAD, Vol. I, p. 347
Quoted by Naveen Sharma, Right to Property in India, 48 (1st edn., 1990)
Ibid
Quoted by B. Shiva Rao, V.K.N. Menon, (eds.), The Framing of India’s Constitution: Select Documents, 74-75, Vol II (1st edn., 1966)
Art. 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India, 1950: provides Indian citizens the right to acquire, hold and dispose of the property
Art. 19(5) of the Constitution of India, 1950: provides Nothing in sub-clauses (d) and (e) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the state from making any law imposing, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of any of the rights conferred by the said sub-clauses either in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Schedule Tribes.
AIR 1954 SC 282
Ibid
AIR 1963 SC 864
AIR 1978 SC 803; See also, Jayantilal R. Shah v. R.B.I., AIR 1997 SC 370
K.K. Kochuni v. State of Madras, AIR 1960 SC 1080
Ram Krishna v. Radhamal, AIR 1952 All 697; See also, Ishwari Prasad v. N.R. Sen, AIR 1952 Cal 273
Ibid
Bhagirath Ram Chand v. State of Punjab, AIR 1954 Punj 167
(1984) 3 SCC 301
AIR 1953 SC 373
AIR 1954 SC 170
Supra note 37 at 1312,1313
AIR 1965 SC 1017
AIR 1962 SC 723
AIR 1967 SC 1643
Sankari Prasad v. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 458, wherein it was held that the word ‘law’ in Article 13(2) did not include law made by parliament under Article 368. The word ‘law’ in Article 13 must be taken to mean rules or regulations made in exercise of legislative power and, therefore Article 13(2) did not affect amendment made under Article 368
Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1965 SC 845, wherein the Supreme Court followed the decision in Sankari Prasad
Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 1318
Supra note 22
AIR 1965 SC 190
Union of Indian v. Metal Corpn. of India Ltd., AIR 1967 SC 637
Ibid
AIR 1969 SC 634