Article 300A of the Indian Constitution deals with the right to property. It was inserted into the Constitution by the 44th Amendment Act, 1978, relocating the right to property from Part III (Fundamental Rights) to Part XII. This amendment significantly altered the nature and enforceability of the right to property in India.
This article ensures that the State cannot arbitrarily confiscate or acquire private property without due legal process, although it is no longer accorded the status of a fundamental right enforceable through Article 32. It serves as a crucial check on the executive power, requiring legislative backing for any deprivation of property.
Original Text
No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.
Detailed Explanation
Article 300A states a simple yet profound principle: the State cannot take away a person’s property unless it is done according to the procedure established by law. This provision places a restriction on the executive wing of the government, mandating that any deprivation of property must be backed by a validly enacted law passed by a competent legislature. It does not mean that the State cannot acquire or take possession of private property; rather, it lays down the condition that such an action must be authorized by law.
Prior to the 44th Amendment Act, 1978, the right to property was a fundamental right guaranteed by Article 31 and, to some extent, Article 19(1)(f). However, due to numerous constitutional amendments and judicial interpretations concerning land reforms and social welfare legislation, the right to property became a contentious issue, often conflicting with the State’s efforts to implement socio-economic changes. The 44th Amendment abolished Article 19(1)(f) and repealed Article 31, inserting Article 300A in Part XII, Chapter IV of the Constitution under the heading “Right to Property”.
The phrase “authority of law” in Article 300A implies that the law must be a statute enacted by Parliament or a State Legislature. An executive order or notification without legislative backing cannot be the basis for depriving a person of their property. Furthermore, judicial interpretation has held that such a law should not be arbitrary or unreasonable, although the standard of judicial review might be less stringent compared to the review of laws affecting fundamental rights.
Deprivation of property under Article 300A is a broad term that includes acquisition, requisition, or any other action by the State that results in the loss of property rights. While the article mandates legal authority, it does not explicitly guarantee compensation for property acquired by the State, unlike the previous Article 31 which initially provided for compensation, later modified to “amount”. The obligation to pay compensation, if any, for acquisition of property for public purposes is now primarily governed by statutory laws such as the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LARR Act).
Being a constitutional right (but not a fundamental right), the remedy for violation of Article 300A lies in challenging the State action in the High Court under Article 226, rather than directly approaching the Supreme Court under Article 32.
Detailed Notes
- Historical Context:
- Right to property was originally a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31.
- Numerous constitutional amendments (1st, 4th, 17th, 25th, 42nd) were made to overcome judicial challenges related to property rights and facilitate land reforms.
- The 44th Amendment Act, 1978, removed the right to property from the list of Fundamental Rights.
- Article 19(1)(f) was repealed, and Article 31 was deleted.
- A new article, Article 300A, was inserted in Part XII, Chapter IV.
- Nature of Right:
- Article 300A makes the right to property a constitutional right or legal right, not a fundamental right.
- It is a limitation on the power of the State.
- It protects individuals from arbitrary executive action concerning their property.
- Meaning of ‘Deprived of Property’:
- Includes not just physical seizure but also any action substantially interfering with the owner’s right to use, possess, and dispose of property.
- Encompasses acquisition, requisition, and other forms of state interference causing loss of property.
- Meaning of ‘Authority of Law’:
- Refers to a validly enacted law passed by a competent legislature (Parliament or State Legislature).
- Executive orders or notifications without legislative backing are not sufficient authority.
- The law itself must be valid and not unconstitutional on other grounds (though judicial scrutiny might differ from laws violating fundamental rights).
- State’s Power vs. Individual Right:
- Article 300A recognizes the State’s power to acquire or take control of property.
- It mandates that this power must be exercised under the authority of law.
- Does not explicitly mandate compensation, unlike the former Article 31.
- Remedy for Violation:
- Violation of Article 300A can be challenged in High Courts under Article 226.
- Direct access to the Supreme Court under Article 32 is not available for violation of Article 300A alone, as it is not a fundamental right.
- Scope:
- Applies to both natural persons and juristic persons (like companies).
- Covers both movable and immovable property.
Additional Comments
- The shift of the right to property from Part III to Part XII reflects the Constituent Assembly’s original intent to prioritize socio-economic reforms and distribute wealth, which was often hampered by property rights being treated as fundamental.
- While Article 300A itself does not guarantee compensation, the State’s power of eminent domain (inherent power to take private property for public use) is often coupled with a statutory obligation to pay compensation, as seen in laws like the LARR Act, 2013.
- The Supreme Court, in cases like K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka (2011), has clarified the scope of Article 300A, stating that it is not a fundamental right but a constitutional right and that deprivation must be by ‘authority of law’, which means a valid law. The court also noted that the requirement of compensation is not explicitly in Article 300A but may be required depending on the nature of the law and the deprivation.
- The principle enshrined in Article 300A is similar to the concept of ‘police power’ and ’eminent domain’ in other jurisdictions, where the state can regulate or take property under due process of law, often with compensation in the case of eminent domain.
Summary
Article 300A of the Indian Constitution, inserted by the 44th Amendment Act, 1978, establishes that no person shall be deprived of their property except by authority of law. This provision downgraded the right to property from a fundamental right to a constitutional/legal right. It mandates that any state action leading to the deprivation of property must be based on a validly enacted law by a competent legislature. While it curbs arbitrary executive actions, it does not explicitly guarantee compensation for acquired property; compensation is now governed by statutory laws. Violation of Article 300A can be challenged in High Courts under Article 226.