Article 19 of the Indian Constitution guarantees certain fundamental freedoms to all citizens. Originally, it enumerated seven such freedoms. However, the list was later reduced to six with the omission of sub-clause (f). Article 19(1)(f) specifically dealt with the right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property, a right that proved to be a significant point of contention in the early decades of independent India’s socio-economic transformation.
This article examines the original provision of Article 19(1)(f), its scope, its relationship with other constitutional provisions concerning property, the reasons for its eventual removal, and its current status in the Indian legal framework. Understanding the history of this omitted fundamental right is crucial for appreciating the evolution of property rights and the balance between individual liberties and state policy in India.
Original Text
The original text of Article 19(1)(f) as it stood before its omission was:
“(1) All citizens shall have the right— … (f) to acquire, hold and dispose of property;”
Detailed Explanation
Article 19(1)(f), as part of the freedoms guaranteed to citizens under Article 19, provided the fundamental right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property. This right, however, was not absolute and was subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6) (which applied broadly to professions, occupations, trade, and business, but its principles of ‘reasonableness’ influenced the interpretation of property rights limitations). Crucially, this right existed alongside Article 31, which dealt with the compulsory acquisition of property by the state and ensured compensation.
The coexistence of Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31 led to considerable judicial interpretation and conflict, particularly in the context of land reform laws and other socialist measures aimed at reducing economic inequality. The courts often struck down state acquisition laws for violating either the ‘right to property’ under Article 19(1)(f) (by imposing unreasonable restrictions) or the requirement for ‘just compensation’ under Article 31.
To overcome these judicial hurdles and facilitate socio-economic reforms, particularly land reforms, the Parliament enacted a series of amendments. The 1st Amendment (1951), 4th Amendment (1955), and 17th Amendment (1964) sought to protect land reform laws from judicial review based on Articles 14, 19, and 31 by inserting Article 31A and 31B (which introduced the Ninth Schedule). The 25th Amendment (1971) diluted the compensation requirement in Article 31 to ‘amount’ and introduced Article 31C to protect laws implementing Directive Principles under Article 39(b) and (c) from challenge under Articles 14, 19, and 31. The 42nd Amendment (1976) further expanded the scope of Article 31C.
Despite these amendments, the right to property under Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31 remained a significant constitutional constraint on the state’s power to implement large-scale economic reforms. Recognizing this, the Constitution (44th Amendment) Act, 1978, undertaken by the Janata Party government, took the significant step of omitting Article 19(1)(f) and repealing Article 31 altogether.
The right to property was moved out of Part III (Fundamental Rights) and was re-established as a legal right under a new Article 300A in Part XII of the Constitution. Article 300A states that “No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.” This change meant that the right to property is no longer a fundamental right enforceable under Article 32 (right to constitutional remedies), but a legal right enforceable through ordinary legal processes. Deprivation must still be by ‘authority of law,’ meaning a validly enacted law, and not merely by executive fiat. While compensation is not explicitly guaranteed as under the original Article 31, the requirement of a ’law’ often implies that the law providing for deprivation may include provisions for compensation or other relief, though this is not a constitutional mandate as it was for fundamental rights.
Detailed Notes
- Original Provision: Article 19(1)(f) granted citizens the fundamental right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property.
- Part of Article 19: It was one of the seven freedoms guaranteed under Article 19(1), subject to reasonable restrictions.
- Coexistence with Article 31: Existed alongside Article 31 (Compulsory Acquisition of Property), leading to complex legal interpretations and conflicts regarding state power to acquire private property for public purposes.
- Judicial Scrutiny: Both Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31 were used by courts to review state laws, particularly those related to land reforms and nationalization.
- Obstacle to Reforms: The fundamental nature of the right and strict judicial interpretation posed challenges to the implementation of socio-economic policies aimed at equitable distribution of land and wealth.
- Series of Amendments: Several amendments (1st, 4th, 17th, 25th, 42nd) were enacted over time to circumvent judicial review and protect reformative laws, primarily by modifying Article 31 and introducing Articles 31A, 31B (Ninth Schedule), and 31C.
- Omission by 44th Amendment: The Constitution (44th Amendment) Act, 1978, omitted Article 19(1)(f) from Part III.
- Repeal of Article 31: Simultaneously, Article 31 was repealed by the same amendment.
- New Status as Legal Right: The right to property was shifted to Part XII of the Constitution under the new Article 300A.
- Article 300A: States that “No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.” It applies to both citizens and non-citizens (as it refers to ‘person’).
- Loss of Fundamental Right Status: The right to property ceased to be a fundamental right, meaning it is no longer directly enforceable under Article 32.
- Enforcement: It is now a legal right, subject to limitations prescribed by ordinary law, and enforceable through ordinary courts (under Article 226 or through civil suits).
- Compensation: While ‘just compensation’ is not a constitutional requirement under Article 300A, a law depriving a person of property may provide for compensation. The deprivation must be by a valid law.
- Reason for Change: Primarily to remove the right to property as a fundamental obstacle to legislative measures aimed at achieving social justice and economic equality as envisaged by the Directive Principles of State Policy.
Additional Comments
- The removal of the right to property from the list of fundamental rights reflects a significant shift in the constitutional philosophy of India, prioritizing socio-economic goals and the collective good over an individual’s absolute right to property.
- The history of Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31 highlights the dynamic tension between fundamental rights (individual liberty) and the Directive Principles of State Policy (socio-economic justice) and the evolving role of the judiciary and the legislature in balancing them.
- Despite being a legal right under Article 300A, the right to property is not without constitutional protection. Deprivation must be based on a valid law, preventing arbitrary executive actions.
Summary
Article 19(1)(f) of the Indian Constitution originally guaranteed citizens the fundamental right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property. This right, along with Article 31 which dealt with compulsory acquisition, became a significant impediment to the state’s efforts to implement land reforms and other socialist policies aimed at reducing economic disparities. Following numerous constitutional amendments attempting to protect such laws from judicial challenge based on these property rights provisions, the Constitution (44th Amendment) Act, 1978, omitted Article 19(1)(f) and repealed Article 31. The right to property was consequently moved out of Part III (Fundamental Rights) and re-established as a legal right under Article 300A in Part XII. This change meant that while no person can be deprived of property except by authority of law, the right is no longer directly enforceable as a fundamental right under Article 32, offering less protection compared to its original status.