Article 31 of the indian constitution

Article 31 of the Indian Constitution: The Rise and Repeal of the Right to Property

Article 31 of the Indian Constitution, now a ghost in the constitutional text, was once one of the most debated, amended, and litigated fundamental rights. Its journey from a guaranteed right to its eventual repeal and rebirth as a modest legal right encapsulates the fierce ideological struggles that shaped post-independence India. The story of Article 31 is the story of the conflict between an individual’s right to own property and the State’s socialist agenda of land reform and equitable wealth distribution.

The Original Mandate: A Qualified Right to Property

When the Constitution was adopted in 1950, the right to property was enshrined as a fundamental right through two key provisions:

1. Article 19(1)(f): This guaranteed all citizens the right “to acquire, hold and dispose of property.”
2. Article 31: This provided protection against the State’s power of eminent domain (the power to acquire private property). It laid down two crucial conditions for such acquisition:
   • Public Purpose: The property could only be acquired for a public purpose.
   • Compensation: The law authorising the acquisition must provide for compensation to the owner.⁴

The framers believed this was a balanced provision, securing private property while allowing the State to pursue its socio-economic goals. However, the seemingly straightforward word “compensation” would become the epicentre of a three-decade-long battle between Parliament and the judiciary.

A History of Conflict: Amendments and Judicial Responses

Almost immediately after the Constitution came into force, Article 31 became a roadblock for the government’s agenda of abolishing the Zamindari (landlordism) system. When courts began striking down land reform laws, Parliament responded with a series of constitutional amendments that progressively diluted the right to property.⁵

• First Amendment (1951): This amendment introduced Articles 31A and 31B.⁶ Article 31A saved laws providing for the acquisition of estates from being challenged on the grounds that they violated Articles 14 or 19.⁷ Article 31B created the Ninth Schedule, a constitutional vault where laws could be placed, making them immune from judicial review, even if they violated fundamental rights.⁸
• The Meaning of “Compensation”: In the State of West Bengal v. Bela Banerjee (1954) case, the Supreme Court held that “compensation” under Article 31 meant a “just equivalent” or the full market value of the property.⁹ This judicial interpretation made large-scale land acquisition financially unfeasible for the government.
• Fourth Amendment (1955): To override the Bela Banerjee judgment, Parliament amended Article 31(2).¹⁰ It made the adequacy of compensation non-justiciable, meaning courts could no longer question whether the amount paid was fair or not.
• Twenty-Fifth Amendment (1971): The conflict escalated further. After the Supreme Court’s decision in the R.C. Cooper (Bank Nationalisation) case, which reiterated the principle of equivalent compensation, Parliament enacted this amendment. It replaced the word “compensation” with the word “amount” in Article 31(2), hoping to completely remove the obligation of paying a fair market value and end judicial scrutiny. This amendment also introduced Article 31C, which gave primacy to certain Directive Principles (Article 39b and 39c) over the fundamental rights in Articles 14, 19, and 31.¹¹

The Repeal: The 44th Amendment Act, 1978

The constant tussle between the legislature and the judiciary, the plethora of amendments, and the political context following the Emergency of 1975 led the post-Emergency Janata Party government to take a drastic step. In 1978, it enacted the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act, which fundamentally altered the status of the right to property.¹²

• Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31 were repealed from Part III (Fundamental Rights).¹³
• This meant that the right to property was no longer a fundamental right.

The primary reason for this repeal was the belief that this right had become a major impediment to achieving the socialist goals of the Constitution and had led to an excessive amount of litigation that hindered development and social reform.

The Afterlife: A Constitutional Right under Article 300-A

The right to property was not entirely erased from the Constitution.¹⁴ The 44th Amendment inserted a new provision, Article 300-A, in Part XII of the Constitution.¹⁵ It states:

“Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law.— No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.”

This transformed the right to property from a fundamental right to a constitutional or legal right. The implications of this change are significant:

1. No Direct Access to Supreme Court: Since it is no longer a fundamental right, an individual whose property is taken away cannot directly approach the Supreme Court under Article 32 for the enforcement of this right.¹⁶ The remedy lies in approaching the High Court under Article 226.
2. Protection Against Executive Action Only: Article 300-A provides protection against arbitrary executiveaction. The government cannot seize property without a valid law. However, it does not provide protection against legislative action. Parliament can pass a law to acquire private property.
3. No Explicit Right to Compensation: Unlike the original Article 31, Article 300-A does not explicitly guarantee compensation for the acquisition of property.

However, the judiciary has breathed new life into Article 300-A. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the “authority of law” mentioned in the article must be a valid law, and it cannot be arbitrary or unreasonable. In several recent judgments, the Court has ruled that the right to property is not just a constitutional right but also a human right.¹⁷ It has often interpreted Article 300-A to imply that any acquisition of property by the State must be for a public purpose and must be accompanied by the payment of fair compensation, thus re-introducing key principles of the original Article 31 through judicial interpretation.

Conclusion: A Transformed Right

The story of Article 31 is a compelling chapter in India’s constitutional history. It charts the journey of a right from a cherished fundamental guarantee to a contentious legal provision, culminating in its repeal. Its transformation into Article 300-A reflects a decisive shift in constitutional priorities, favouring social engineering and community interests over individual property rights.¹⁸ Yet, through the interpretive lens of the judiciary, the right to property continues to be a robust legal safeguard against arbitrary state power, demonstrating the enduring resilience of constitutional principles.