2.11.1. Right to Property

Behind the controversy about the relationship between rights and directive principles, there was one important reason: in the Constitution, originally, there was a fundamental right to ‘acquire, possess and maintain’ property. But the Constitution made it clear that property could be taken away by the government for public welfare.

Originally, the Indian Constitution included a fundamental right that allowed citizens to acquire, possess, and maintain property. This means that an individual had legal backing to own and safeguard their property from arbitrary state actions. However, the Constitution also allowed the government to take over property, provided it was for public welfare, such as building roads or schools. This introduces a balance between individual rights and community needs, highlighting the government's role in serving the public good.

Imagine you own a piece of land on which you grew a variety of fruit trees. One day, the government announces plans to construct a new school on that land for the community. While you have the right to your property, the government has a right to take it for the greater benefit of the public, especially if they compensate you fairly.

Since 1950, government made many laws that limited this right to property. This right was at the centre of the long debate over the relationship between rights and directive principles.

Over the years, various laws have been enacted by the government that place restrictions on the right to property. This reflects ongoing discussions about how individual rights can sometimes be curtailed for broader social goals, such as equality or economic development. The tension lies in balancing the rights of individuals against the needs of society as a whole, leading to debates on how far the government's authority can extend.

Think of a landlord in a city where there’s a constant shortage of housing. The government might impose laws that limit how much rent the landlord can charge or force them to provide housing for low-income families. While the landlord has a right to make a profit from their property, the government's laws aim to ensure everyone has access to affordable housing.

Finally, in 1973, the Supreme Court gave a decision that the right to property was not part of the basic structure of the Constitution and therefore, parliament had power to abridge this right by an amendment. In 1978, the 44th amendment to the Constitution removed the right to property from the list of Fundamental Rights and converted it into a simple legal right under article 300 A.

A landmark ruling by the Supreme Court in 1973 established that the right to property was not an inviolable part of the Constitution's core principles. Consequently, Parliament was permitted to amend this right, meaning the government could adjust regulations regarding property ownership and its limitations. The 44th amendment in 1978 changed the status of property rights from being fundamental (with higher protection) to just a legal right, which can be modified more easily.

Imagine a law that was once set in stone, protecting your right to keep your home as it was, no matter what. Now think of a new law that allows the government to alter that protection, essentially making it easier for them to make decisions about your home and property. This shows how laws can change with shifting priorities and societal needs.

This generated another complicated debate. This related to the amendment of the Constitution. The government was saying that Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution. The court was saying that Parliament cannot make an amendment that violated Fundamental Rights.

This discussion centers on how amendments to the Constitution should occur, particularly regarding individual rights versus societal needs. The Parliament asserted that it held the power to remove or alter rights, including property rights, for the greater good as expressed in the Directive Principles of State Policy. However, the judiciary contended that there are limits to what rights can be amended, as some rights are central to the constitutional framework and must be preserved.

Consider two teams in a game where one team believes they can change any rule for the sake of winning, while the other insists that some rules are immovable because they're integral to fair play. This reflects the balance between government authority to legislate for public welfare and the necessity to protect certain foundational rights.

--