Chap5 Property fundamental to constitution

Pre 1978 Amendment ACT Article 19(1)(f) Post 1978 Amendment Act Articles 31(a), 31(a), 31(a), 300 A The Indian Constitution does not recognie !ro!ert" !ro!ert" right as a fundamental right# In the "ear 1977, the $$th amendment eliminated the right to ac%uire, hold and dis! dis!os ose e of !ro! !ro!er ert" t" as a fund fundam amen enta tall righ right# t# &o'ee &o'eer, r, in anot anothe herr !art !art of the the Constitution, Article 300 (A) 'as inserted to arm that no !erson shall *e de!ried of  his !ro!ert" sae *" authorit" of la'# The result is that the right to !ro!ert" as a fundamental right is no' su*stituted as a statutor" right# The amendment e+!anded the !o'er of the state to a!!ro!riat a!!ro!riate e !ro!ert" !ro!ert" for social 'elfare 'elfare !ur!oses# !ur!oses# In other 'ords, the amendment *esto'ed u!on the Indian socialist state a licence to indulge in 'hat redric redric -astiat termed termed legal !lunder# !lunder# This is one of the classic e+am!les 'hen the la' has *een !ererted in order to ma.e !lunder loo. /ust and sacred to man" consciences# Indian e+!eriences and conce!tion of !ro!ert" !ro!ert" and 'ealth hae a er" dierent historical *asis than that of 'estern countries# The fact the !resent s"stem of !ro!ert" !ro!ert" as 'e .no' .no' aris arises es out out of the the !ecu !eculi liar ar dee deelo lo!m !men ents ts in ur uro!e o!e in the the 17th 17th to 18thcentur" and therefore its e+!eriences 'ere uniersall" not a!!lica*le# A still more economic economic area in 'hich the ans'er is *oth dicult and im!ortant im!ortant is the de2nition de2nition of  !ro!ert" rights# The notion of !ro!ert" as it has deelo!ed oer centuries and it has em*odies in our legal codes, has *ecome so much a !art of us that 'e tend to ta.e it for granted, and fail to recognie the e+tent to 'hich /ust 'hat constitutes !ro!ert" and 'hat rights the o'nershi! of !ro!ert" confers are com!le+ social creations rather than self eident !ro!ositions#This also seems to *e the hidden reason 'h" the right to !ro!ert" is suddenl" much contested throughout India toda" and 'h" the state is comin co ming g u! une+ une+!e !ect cted edl" l" agai agains nstt huge huge res esis ista tanc nce e from from une+ une+!e !ect cted ed %uar %uarte ters rs in attem!ting to ac%uire land in India# The action of the state to assert the minent omain oer su*sidiar" claims on !ro!ert" and the clash 'hich resulted there from 4ingur, 5andigram and other !arts of India is !recisel" a manifestation of a clash of  cultures# To !ut in 4amuel &untingtons 'ords, the ideas of the 'est of deelo!ment and li*eraliation !ro!agated *" the !resent ruling elite and the old Indic ideas 'hich sha!e the ie's of the ma/orit" of the !eo!le The right to !ro!ert" under the Indian constitution tried to a!!roach the %uestion of ho' to handle !ro!ert" and !ressures relating to it *" tr"ing to *alance the right to !ro!ert" 'ith the right to com!ensation for its ac%uisition through an a*solute fundamental right to !ro!ert" and then *alancing the same 'ith reasona*le restr restrict iction ionss and adding adding a furthe furtherr fundam fundament ental al right right ofcom! ofcom!ens ensati ation on in cas case e the !ro!erties are ac%uired ac%uired *" the state# This 'as e+em!li2ed *" Article 19(1) (f) *alanced *" Article 19(6) and the com!ensation article in Article 31# This 'as an interesting deelo!ment inuenced *" the -ritish of the idea minent omain *ut oerall it struc. an interesting *alance 'here*" it recognied the !o'er of the state to ac%uire !ro!ert", *ut for the 2rst time in the histor" of India for a thousand "ears or more, it recognied the indiiduals right to !ro! !ro!er ert" t" agai agains nstt the the stat state# e# &o &o'e 'ee er, r, 'hen 'hen the the stat state e rea eali lie ed d that that an a*so a*solu lute te !ro!ert" and the as!irations of the !eo!le 'ere not the same the legislature 'as su*se%uentl" forced to ma.e the said right to !ro!ert" su*/ect to social 'elfare amid amendments to the constitution# Articles 31A, 31- and 31C are the indicators of the change and the counter !ressure of the state 'hen it realied the inherent !ro*lems in granting a clear 'estern st"le a*solute fundamental right to !ro!ert" (een though it 'as *alanced *" reasona*le restrictions in the interest of the !u*lic), s!eciall"

Article 31C, 'hich for the 2rst time *rought out the social nature of !ro!ert"# It is another matter that the said !roisions 'ere misused, and 'hat 'e are discussing toda", *ut the a*use of the socialist state in India is not the sco!e of the !resent article and the articles are considered on their face alue onl"# Doctrine of Eminent Domain v HISTORY 

e' hundred "ears old and 2rst used 'hen an nglish .ing needed salt !etre (form of  Potassium 5itrate, used in the manufacturing of 2re 'or.) to ma.e gun !o'der and 'hen he 'as not a*le to 2nd an" land,he gra**ed hold of a !riate mine# The o'ner of the !riate mine a!!roached a!!roached the &ouse of ords, ords, the &ouse of ords ords held that, the soereign can do an"thing, if the act of soereign inoles !u*lic interest# WHAT IS THE POWER BESTOWED BY THE DOCTRINE TO THE STATE???

-asicall" this doctrine entitles soereign to ac%uire !riate land for a !u*lic use, !roided the !u*licness of the usage can *e demonstrated *e"ond dou*t# PRESENTLY THE DOCTRINE DOES THE DUTY OF

In the !resent conte+t this doctrine raises the classic de*ate of !o'ers of 4tate # Indii Indiidua duall ights ights## &er &ere e comes comes the Ie Ieelo elo!me !ment nt Induce Induced d is!la is!lacem cement ent 'hich 'hich means, The forcing of communities een out of their homes, often from their home lands for the !ur!ose of economic deelo!ment, 'hich is ie'ed as a &uman ight iolation in the International leel# ESSENTIAL ESSENTIAL IN!REDIENTS OF THIS DOCTRINE

1# Pro!ert" is ta.en for !u*lic use :# Com!ensation is !aid for the !ro!ert" ta.en#  The a*oe said are the t'o limitations im!osed on the !o'er of minent omain *" the re!ealed A#31 #31 # ;her herea eass the the ne' ne' A#300 300 A im!o im!ose sess onl" onl" one one limi limittatio ation n on this this !o' !o'er (i#e#,)Authorit" of a'
i# 4alus Po!uli est 4u!rema e+ ;elfare >f The Peo!le >f The Pu*lic Is The Paramount a'? ii# 5ecessita Pu*lic
interest in !ro!ert"# The right to receie !ension is !ro!ert"#  The 4u!reme Courts Courts a!!roach a!!roach to the right to !ro!ert" !ro!ert" can *e diided into t'o t'o !hases THE TI*E TILL THE RI!HT TO PROPERTY WAS A FUNDA*ENTAL RI!HT +PRE ,-./0 THE TI*E AFTER THE CON1ERSION OF RI!HT TO PROPERTY AS A CONSTITUTIONAL RI!HT +POST ,-./ )

The 5inth 4chedule 'as inserted in the constitution *" the Constitution (irst Amendment) Act, 1961 along 'ith t'o ne' Articles 31 A D 31 - so as to ma.e la's ac%uiring amindaris unchallengea*le in the courts# Thirteen 4tate Acts named in this this sc sche hedu dule le 'er 'ere !ut !ut *e"o *e"ond nd an" an" chal challe leng nge e in co cour urts ts for for co cont ntra rae ent ntio ion n of  fundamental rights# These ste!s 'ere felt necessar" to carr" out land reforms in accordance 'ith the economic !hiloso!h" of the state to distri*ute the land among the land 'or.ers, after ta.ing a'a" such land from the land lords# -" the ourth ourth Amendment Act, 1966, Art 31 relating to right to !ro!ert" 'as amended in seeral res!ects# The !ur!ose of these amendments related to the !o'er of the state state o com!ul com!ulsor sor" " ac%uis ac%uisiti ition on and re%ui re%uisit sition ioning ing of !ria !riate te !ro!e !ro!ert" rt"## The amount of com!ensation !a"a*le for this !ur!ose 'as made un/usti2a*le to oercome the eect of the 4u!reme Court /udgement in the decision of 4tate of ;est -engal # -ella -aner/ee# -" the constitution (4eenteenth Amendment) Act, 19E$, article 31 A 'as amended 'ith res!ect to meaning of e+!ression estate and the 5inth 4chedule 'as amended *" including therein certain state enactments# uring uring this !eriod !eriod the 4u!reme 4u!reme Court Court 'as generall" generall" of the ie' that land refor eforms ms need need to *e u!he u!held ld een een if the" the" did did stri strict ctl" l" clas clash h agai agains nstt the the righ rightt to !ro! !ro!er ert" t",t ,tho houg ugh h the the 4u!r 4u!rem eme e Co Cour urtt 'as 'as itse itself lf s.e! s.e!ti tica call a*ou a*outt the the 'a" 'a" the the goer goernm nmen entt 'ent 'ent a*ou a*outt e+er e+ercis cisin ing g its its admi admini nist stra rati tie e !o'e !o'err in this this regar egard#The d#The 4u!r 4u!reme Court Court 'as insist insistent ent that that the admini administr strati atie e discr discretio etion n to a!!ro a!!ro!ri !riate ate or infringe !ro!ert" rights should *e in accordance 'ith la' and cannot *e *" mere fact# fact The # The court ho'eer reall" clashed 'ith the socialist e+ecutie during the !eriod of  nati nation onal ali iat atio ion, n, 'hen 'hen the the co cour urtt admi admira ra*l *l" " stoo stood d u! for for the the righ rightt to !ro! !ro!er ert" t" in ho'eer a limited manner against the oer reaches of the socialist state # In this  /uncture the court in this Ban2 Nationa&i$ation ca$e #has clearl" !ointed out the follo'ing t'o !oints a# The consti constitut tution ion guara guarante ntees es the right right to com!en com!ensat sation ion 'hich 'hich is e%uia e%uialen lentt in mone" to the alue of the !ro!ert" has *een com!ulsoril" ac%uired# This is the *asic guar guaran ante tee# e# The The la' la' must must ther theref efor ore e !ro !roid ide e co com! m!en ensa satio tion n and and for for dete determ rmin inin ing g com!ensation releant !rinci!les must *e s!eci2ed if the !rinci!les are not releant the ultimate alue determined is not com!ensation# *# The constitution guarantees that the e+!ro!riate o'ner must *e gien the alue of  his his !ro! !ro!er ert" t" (the (the rea easo sona na*l *le e co com! m!en ensa sati tion on for for the the loss loss of the the !ro! !ro!er ert" t")# )# That That reasona*le com!ensation must not *e illusionar" and not reached *" the a!!lication of an underta.ing as a unit after a'arding com!ensation for some items 'hich go to ma.e u! the underta.ing and omitting im!ortant items amounts to ado!ting an irreleant !rinci!le in the determination of the alue of the underta.ing and does not furnish com!ensation to the e+!ro!riated e+!ro!riated o'ner# o'ner # It 'as at this !eriod the 4u!reme Court had gone out of its 'a" to hold against the right to !ro!ert" and the right to accumulate 'ealth and also held that 'ith regard to Article 39, the distri*ution of material resources to *etter sere the common good and the restriction on the concentration of 'ealth#The court ho'eer is also res!onsi*le in

toning do'n the e+cesses on the right to !ro!ert" and 'ealth *" the socialist state# uring the !eriod of i*eralisation, the 4u!reme Court has attem!ted to get *ac. to reinter!ret the !roisions 'hich gie !rotection to the right to !ro!ert" so as to ma.e the the !rot !rotec ecti tion on rea eall and not not illu illussor or" " and and dilu dilute te the the clai claim m of dis distri* tri*ut utio ion n of  'ealth#&o'eer, this has *een an incremental a!!roach and much more needs to *e done to shift the *alance *ac. to the original in the constitution#  This means that the ac%uisition of !ro!ert" is not merel" tem!oral *ut to *e acce!ted as alid it must conform to s!iritual guidelines as 'ell as the Indian conce!tions recognie %uite clearl" that though !ro!ert" can *e en/o"ed 'hich has not *een ac%uired strictl" in terms of the la', it cannot *e called real !ro!ert" of the !erson concerned# Pro!ert" therefore is not merel" an indiidual right *ut a construction and !art of social and s!iritual order# order# The *asis of conce!tion of !ro!ert" in the societies of  India is not a rigid and clear demarcation of claims *elonging to an indiidual *ut is a sum total of societal and indiidual claims all of 'hich need not *e *ased on clear indiidual legal demarcation# The out*urst against the ight to Pro!ert" Pro!ert" as a undamental ight in Articles 19 (1) (f) and 31 started immediatel" after the enforcement of the Constitution in 1960# 1960# and and reform eforms, s, amind amindari ari a*olit a*olition ion la's, la's, dis!ut dis!utes es rela elatin ting g to com!en com!ensat sation ion,, seeral rounds of constitutional amendments, litigations and ad/udications ultimatel" culminated 2rst in the insertion of the 'ord socialist in the Pream*le *" the $:nd Amendment in 1977 and later in the omission of the ight to Pro!ert" as a  and its reincarnation as a *are constitutional right in Article 300A *" the $$th Amendment in 1978# Toda", the times hae changed radicall"# radicall"# India is no more seen through the e"es of onl" !olitical leaders 'ith a socialist *ias# It is India 4hining seen through the cor!orate lenses of 2nancial giants li.e the Tatas, Am*anis and I, the 4u!reme Court realised the 'orth of the ight to Pro!ert" as a undamental ight# In the a*sence of  this undamental undamental ight to !ro!ert", !ro!ert", it too. recourse to the other undamental ight of  %uali %ualit" t" 'hich 'hich is a*solu a*solutel tel" " the conce! conce!tt of eas easona ona*le *lenes nesss under under Artic Article le 1$ for inalidating certain as!ects of the ur*an land ceiling legislation# Toda", Toda", the need is felt to restore the right to !ro!ert" as a undamental ight for !rotecting at least the elementar" and *asic !ro!rietar" rights of the !oor Indian citiens against com!ulsor" land ac%uisition# Ger" recentl", the 4u!reme Court, 'hile disa!!roing the ageold octrine of  Aderse Possession, Possession, as against the rights of the real o'ner, o*sered that The right to !ro!ert" is no' considered to *e not onl" a constitutional right or statutor" right *ut also a human right#Thus, the trend is unmista.a*le# -" :060, if the Constitution of  India is to *e credited 'ith a sense of sensi*ilit" and e+i*ilit" in .ee!ing 'ith the times, the *ad 'ord socialist inserted in the Pream*le in 1977 shall stand omitted and the ight to Pro!ert" shall stand resurrected to its original !osition as a undamental ight# In a er" recent PI 2led in the 4u!reme Court 'hich 'as still !ending in the &on*le Court, it 'as held that the er" !ur!ose for 'hich the right to !ro!ert" relegated to a

mere statutor" right in the late 1970s is not no longer releant# It 'as argued *" &arish 4ale, the learned counsel for the !etitioners that  The right to !ro!ert" is made a statutor" right in 1978 to a*olish large land holdings 'ith 'ith amind amindars ars and rich rich and their their distri distri*ut *ution ion among among landle landless ss !easan !easants? ts?&a &aing ing achi ac hie eed ed the the er" er" !ur! !ur!os ose e *ehi *ehind nd the the legi legisl slat ati ie e ac actio tion n in the the late late 1970 1970s, s, the the goernment should no' initiate fresh measures to !ut right to !ro!ert" *ac. in the fundamental rights# arlier, the a!e+ court in its famous 3e$"avanan#an B"arti ca$e  of 1973 had 2rst termed some *asic and unaltera*le !arameters and features of the Indian state and its its co cons nsti titu tuti tion on li. li.e the the co coun untr tr"H "Hss demo democr crat atic ic form form of goe goerrnmen nment, t, as its its *asi *asicc structure, 'hich could not *e changed at all een *" constitutional amendment# -ut, in the /udgement of the case, ustice &## Jhanna had made a !assing o*seration to the eect that fundamental rights accorded to the citiensH might not *e a *asic structure of the Constitution# This had left the sco!e o!en for changing or diluting the fundamental right of the citiens# Though Though later later in 1976, 1976, 'hile 'hile ad/udi ad/udicat cating ing anothe anotherr famous famous la'sui la'suitt *et'een erst'hile Prime riginall" E$ la's 'ere added to the 5inth 4chedule and more acts 'ere added *" the $th, 17th and :9th Amendment Acts? 3$th Amendment added 17 more Acts? 39thAmendment added 38 Acts? $:nd Amendment added E$ Acts? the $7th Amendment added 1$ more Acts and *" the end of this amendment the num*er of Acts in the 5inth 4chedule had risen to :0:? The EEth Amendment added 66 Acts raising the total to :67# The 76th Amendment Act, 199$ has *een !assed *" the !arliament, 'hich includes Tamil 5adu Act !roiding for E9 !ercent

reseration for *ac.'ard classes under the 5inth 4chedule# This is a clear misuse of  the 5inth 4chedule for !olitical gains as the o*/ect of the 5inth 4chedule of the Constitution is to !rotect onl" land reform la's from *eing challenged in court# After the addition of :7 more Acts to the 4chedule *" the 78th Amendment Act of 1996 the total num*er of Acts !rotected *" the 4chedule has risen to :8$# The saga did not end here, the hornets nest had *een stirred stirred u! alread", the state made a consistent attem!t *" the !rocess of amendment to the Constitution to remoe the /udicial chec. on the e+ercise of its !o'er in a large area, and to clothe itself 'ith ar*itrar" !o'er in that regard# The histor" of the amendments of Article 31(1) and (:) and the adding of Articles 31(A) and (-) and the 5inth 4chedule reeal the !attern# Article 31 in its 2rst t'o clauses deals 'ith the de!riation of !ro!ert" and ac%uisition of !ro!ert"# The 4u!reme Court held in a series of decisions i# 4tate of ;est -engal #
and also "ot'ari lands# It also added conse%uentiall", the second !roiso to clause (1) to !rotect a !erson of *eing de!ried of land less than the releant land ceiling limits held *" him for !ersonal cultiation,$ e+ce!t on !a"ment of full mar.et alue thereof *" 'a" of com!ensation# It also added $$ more Acts to the 5inth 4chedule#  The 4u!reme Court *" arious /udgments considered the said amendments and restricted their sco!e 'ithin reasona*le con2nes# The 4u!reme Court in Jocchuni s 4tate of
e+!ression of agrarian reforms, the slum clearance and other *ene2cial utilisation of  acant and 'aste lands# In a !"6&a%"ai v4 Union of In#ia9 the 4u!reme Court did not acce!t the contention of the state that the e+!ression KLstateKL ta.es in all 'aste lands, forest lands, lands for !astures or sites of *uildings in a illage 'hether the" 'ere connected 'ith agriculture or not *ut ruled that the said enumerated lands 'ould come under the said de2nition onl" if the" 'ere used for the !ur!ose of  agriculture or for !ur!oses ancillar" thereto# The result of the *rief sure" of the !roisions of the Constitution and the case la' thereon as it stood then ma" *e stated in the form of the follo'ing !ro!ositions (1) er" citien has a fundamental right to ac%uire, hold and dis!ose of the !ro!ert"# (:) The state can ma.e a la' im!osing reasona*le restrictions on the said right in !u*lic interest# (3) The said restrictions, under certain circumstances, ma" amount to de!riation of  the said right# ($) ;hether a restriction im!osed *" la' on a fundamental right is reasona*le and in !u*lic interest or not, is a /usticia*le issue# (6) The state can *" la', de!rie a !erson of his !ro!ert" if the said la' of de!riation amounts to reasona*le restriction restriction in !u*lic interest 'ithin the meaning of Article 19(6)# (E) The state can ac%uire or re%uisition the !ro!ert" of a !erson for a !u*lic !ur!ose after !a"ing com!ensation# (7) The ade%uac" of the com!ensation is not /usticia*le# (8) If the com!ensation 2+ed *" la' is illusor" or is contrar" to the !rinci!les releant to the 2+ation of com!ensation, it 'ould *e a fraud on !o'er and therefore the alidit" of such a la' *ecomes /usticia*le# (9) a's of agrarian reform de!riing or restricting the rights in anKLestateKLthe said e+!r e+!res essi sion on has has *een *een de2n de2ned ed to incl includ ude e !rac !racti tica call" ll" eer eer" " agri agricu cult ltur ural al land land in a illagecannot *e %uestioned on the ground that the" hae infringed fundamental rights# Another !ath *rea.ing deelo!ment, 'hich is till toda" *eing considered as the most triial !hase faced *" the /udiciar" and legislature in entire Constitutional histor" of our nation 'as triggered o *" the issue of right to !ro!ert"# As e+!lained herein *efo *eforre ther there e 'as 'as an ongo ongoing ing tuss tussle le *et' *et'ee een n the the /udi /udicia ciar" r" and and the the legis legisla latu turre regarding the Constitutional !roisions of right to !ro!ert"# The theor" 'as sim!le# The /udiciar" 'as inalidating legislatie action cur*ing !ro!ert" !ro!ert" rights in orde orderr to u!ho u!hold ld the the sa sanc ncti tit" t" of the the Co Cons nsti titu tuti tion on## And And 'hen 'hene eer er the the /udi /udici ciar ar" " inalidated a la' *" terming it as unconstitutional the legislature 'ould conenientl" amend the Constitution in order to u!hold its su!remac" oer the /udiciar"# ;hen this saga 'as going on, there emerged another set of litigations 'hich actuall" intended to !ut an end to the legislatie mani!ulation *" %uestioning the amending !o'er of the Constitution itself# itself# These litigations 'ere *ased on the releance of Article 13(:) of the Constitution 'hich !roides that the state shall not ma.e an" la' 'hich ta.es a'a" or a*ridges the fundamental rights and an" la' made in contraention of fundamental right shall to the e+tent of contraention, *e oid# 4o the line of argument that 'as !ut for'ard *" the litigants in the cases to *e discussed hereinafter 'as %uestioning the alidit" of amending !o'er of the !arliament 'ith regard to fundamental rights# It all *egan 'hen the%uestion 'hether fundamental rights can *e amended under Article 3E8 came for consideration of the 4u!reme Court in 4han.ari Prasad # Bnion of India# In this case the alidit" of the Constitution (1 st Amendment) Act, 1961, 'hich inserted inter alia, Articles 31A and 31- of the Constitution 'aschallenged# The Amendment 'as challenged challenged on the ground ground that it !ur!orted to ta.e ta.e a'a" or a*ridge the rights conferred *" Part III, 'hich fell 'ithin the !rohi*ition of Article 13 (:) and

hence 'as oid# It 'as argued that the state in Article 1: included !arliament and the 'ord la' in Article 13 (:), therefore, must include Constitution amendment# The 4u!reme Court, ho'eer, re/ected the a*oe argument and held that the !o'er to amend the Constitution including the fundamental rights is contained in Article 3E8, and that the 'ord la' in Article 13 (8) includes onl" an ordinar" la' made in e+ercise of the legislatie !o'ers and does not include Constitutional amendment 'hich is made in e+ercise of constituent !o'er#  Therefore,  Therefore, a Constitutional amendment 'ill *e alid een if it a*ridges or ta.es an" of  the fundamental rights# In Sa55an Sin(" v4 State of Ra5a$t"an , the alidit" of the Cons Co nsti titu tuti tion on (17t (17th h Amen Amendm dmen ent) t) Act, ct, 19E$ 19E$ 'as 'as chal challe leng nged ed## The The 4u!r 4u!rem eme e Co Cour urtt a!!roed the ma/orit" /udgement gien in 4han.ari Prasads case and held that the 'ords amendment of the Constitution means amendment of all the !roisions of the Constitution# a/endragad.ar, a/endragad.ar, C  said that if the Constitutionma.ers Constitutionma.ers intended to e+clude the fundamental rights from the sco!e of the amending !o'er the" 'ould hae made a clear !roision in that *ehalf# *ehalf# T&e c&allen(e to t&e Se/en Essential 'eatu!es of t&e Constitution 3* A!ticle 4" C A!ticle A!t icle 4"C sou(&t to c&allen(e se/en essential featu!es of t&e Constitution5 ,4 1ita& Di$tinction %et'een T'o Ca$e$ of Con$tit6tiona& amen#ment

(1) ;here the fundamental rights are amended to !ermit la's to *e alidl" !ass 'hich 'ould hae *een oid *efore amendment? and (:) ;here the fundamental rights remain unamended *ut the la's, 'hich are oid, as oending those rights are alidated *" a legal 2ction that the" shall not *e deemed oid#  The %uestion is not merel" of legislatie deice# In the 2rst case the la' is Constitutional in realit", *ecause the fundamental rights themseles stand a*ridged# :4 Uncon$tit6tiona& in rea&it8 %6t ;ctiona&

In the second case the la' is unconstitutional in realit" *ut is deemed *" a 2ction of  la' not to *e so? 'ith the result that Constitution *rea.ing la' is alidated and there is a re!udiation of  the Constitution !ro tanto# If the second case is !ermissi*le as a !ro!er e+ercise of the amending !o'er, the Constitution could *e reduced to a scra! of !a!er# !a!er# If 31C is alid, it 'ould *e e%uall" !ermissi*le to !arliament to so amend the Constitution as to declare all la's to *e alid 'hich are !assed *" the !arliament or state legislatures in e+cess of their legislatie com!etence, or 'hich iolate an" of the *asic human rights in Part III or the freedom of interstate trade in Article 301# It 'ould *e e%uall" !er !ermiss missi* i*le le to hae hae an omni omni*u *uss arti articl cle e that that not not 'ith 'ithst stan andi ding ng an"t an"thi hing ng in the the Constitution, no la' !assed *" the Parliament or an" state legislature shall *e deemed to *e oid on an" ground 'hatsoeer# The insertion of one such article 'ould toll the death.nell of the Constitution# (The fact that under the 4u!reme Courts /udgement in the fundamental rights case the Constitution cannot *e so amended so as to alter the *asic structure, is releant to the !oint considered here, i# that a %uietus is gien to the su!remac" of the Constitution *" the omni*us !rotection of Constitution*rea.ing la's#)  Thus Article 31C clearl" damages or destro"s the su!remac" of the Constitution, 'hich is one of the essential features# It gies a *lan. charter to the !arliament and to all the state legislatures to def" and ignore the Constitutional mandath regarding human rights# 4econd, Article 31C su*ordinates the fundamental rights to the irectie !rinci!les of state !olic" and in eect a*rogated the rights as regards la's, 'hich the legislature intends or declares to *e for giing eect to the directie !rinci!les# The fundamental rights are !aramount and are enforcea*le in the courts (Article 3: and ::E), in contrast to the directie !rinci!les, 'hich are not so enfo enforrce cea* a*le le (Art (Artic icle le 37)# 37)# To a*r a*rogat ogate e fund fundam amen enta tall righ rights ts 'hen 'hen gii giing ng e eec ectt to directie !rinci!les is to destro" another *asic element of the Constitution# Ignorance

and ar*itrariness, in/ustice and unfairness, 'as thereafter thereafter not to *e u!on challenge on the touchstone of the inalua*le *asic rights#  Form < *anner Amena%i&it8 of t"e F6n#amenta& F6n#amenta& Princi7&e

 Third, it is a fundamental !rinci!le of the Constitution that it can *e amended onl" in form and manner laid do'n in Article 3E8 and according to that Articles *asic scheme#  This !rinci!le 'as re!udiated *" Article 31C# That Article had the eect of irtuall" authorising the a*rogation of the fundamental rights 'hile the" still remain ostensi*l" in the statute *oo.# Criticism and de*ate, 'ithin and outside !arliament, 'hich 'ould *e eo.ed *" a !ro!osal to a*ridge a !articular fundamental right are aoided, 'hile arious fundamental rights are eectiel" silenced# The a*surd situation 'as that, 'hereas amendment of a single fundamental right 'ould re%uire a t'othirds ma/orit" (Article 3E8), a la' falling 'ithin 31C 'hich oerrides and iolates seeral fundamental rights could *e !assed *" a sim!le ma/orit"# Ro&e of F6n#amenta& Ri("t$ a$ T"e E$$entia& Feat6re Feat6re of t"e Con$tit6tion

ourth, the fundamental rights constitute an essential feature of the Constitution# ;ithin its 2eld Article 31C com!letel" too. a'a"  The right to ac%uire, ac%uire, hold and dis!ose of !ro!ert" !ro!ert" NArticle 19(1)(f)O? 19(1)(f)O?  The right not to *e de!ried de!ried of !ro!ert" !ro!ert" sae *" authorit" of la' NArticle NArticle 31(1)O?  The right to assert that !ro!ert" can *e ac%uired or re%uisitioned *" the state onl" for a !u*lic !ur!ose NArticle 31(:)O? and  The right to receie an amount, ho'eer small, 'hen the state seies the !ro!ert" NArticle 31(:)O# In short, Article 31C e+!ressl" authorised outright con2scation of an" !ro!ert", large or small, *elonging to an"one, !oor or rich, citien or noncitien# urther, Article 31C !roi !roides des for the 'holes 'holesale ale smothe smotherin ring g of ariou ariouss rights rights 'hich 'hich 'ere 'ere all toget together her distinct from right to !ro!ert" and are totall" irreleant to the irectie !rinci!les of  state !olic" laid do'n in Article 39(*) and (c)# en the rights to e%ualit" *efore la', to freedom of s!eech and e+!ression, to assem*le !eacea*l" and 'ithout arms, to form associations and unions, to moe freel" throughout the territor" of India, to reside and settle in an" !art of the territor" of India, and to !ractice an" !rofession or to carr" on an" occu!ation, trade or *usiness 'hich are so ital for the surial of the democrac", the rule of la', and the integrit" and unit" of the re!u*lic, can *e iolated under Article 31C under the cloa. of im!roing the economic s"stem# T"e Directive Princi7&e Of State Po&ic8

ifth, it 'as not een !ermitted to raise the %uestion 'hether the !ro!osed la' 'ill result, or is reasona*l" calculated to result, in securing the directie !rinci!le laid do'n in Article 39(*) and (c)# The 'rong done to the !eo!le 'ho are de!ried of their *asic freedoms is 'orsened *" !rotection to those la's, 'hich ma" not *e at all calculated to gie eect to the directie !rinci!les# The right to moe the 4u!reme Court to enforce other fundamental rights is itself a fundamental right (Article 3:) and is a *asic feature of the Constitution# This right is destro"ed 'hen a fundamental right is made unenforcea*le against a la' !ur!orting to gie eect to the directie !rinci!les and at the same time the court is !recluded from considering 'hether the la' is such that it can !ossi*l" secure an" directie !rinci!le W"at i$ t"e %a$ic 7rinci7&e of t"e con$tit6tion???

4i+th, the *asic !rinci!le of the Constitution is that no state legislature can amend the fundamental rights or an" other !art of the Constitution# This essential feature is re!udiated *" 31C, 'hich em!o'ers een state legislatures to !ass la's, 'hich irtuall" inole a re!eal of the fundamental rights# The 'holl" irrational conse%uence is that 'hereas state legislatures cannot a*ridge a single fundamental right, it 'as no' o!en to them to su!ercede a 'hole series of such rights# In su*stance, the !o'er

of amending or oerriding the Constitution is delegated to all state legislatures, 'hich is not !ermissi*le under Article 3E8 5# A# Pal.hiala rightl" remar.ed in this regard &ereafter li*ert" ma" surie in some states and not in others, de!ending on the com!le+ion of the !olitical !art" in !o'er# The state of 
>ne of the essential features of the Constitution is to !roide for due !rotection to minorities and their cultural and educational rights# The fundamental rights under Artic Article le 1$,1 1$,19 9 and and 31, 31, 'hic 'hich h 'er 'ere so soug ught ht to *e su!e su!ers rsed eded ed *" Arti Articl cle e 31C 31C are are necessar" to ma.e meaningful rights of the minorities, 'hich are, guaranteed *" Articles :6 to 30# Bnder the guise of giing eect to the directie !rinci!les, a num*er of ste! ste!ss ma" ma" *e ta. ta.en 'hic 'hich h ma" ma" se seri riou ousl sl" " unde underm rmin ine e the the !osi !ositi tion on of regio egiona nall linguistic, cultural and other minorities# The !roiso inserted *" the :6th amendment is a er" tall tale# It e+!ressl" !roides that 'here the !ro!ert" of an educational institution esta*lished and administered *" a minorit" is ac%uired, the amount 2+ed for the ac%uisition should *e such as not to restrict or a*rogate the right guaranteed under 30(1)# The clear im!lication is that 'hen !ro!ert" is ac%uired in an" other cases, an amount can *e 2+ed 'hich a*rogates or restricts an" other fundamental rights, for instance, the right to freedom of s!eech and e+!ression NArticle 19(1)(a)O, to form associations or unions NArticle 19(1)(c)O, or to !ractice an" !rofession or carr" out an" occu!ation, trade or *usiness NArticle 1991)(g)O, or the right of an religious communit" to esta*lish and maintain institutions for religious or charita*le !ur!oses (Article (Article :E)# urther, urther, if a la' iolates the rights of the minorities minorities under Articles :6 to 30, such la', *eing inalid, 'ould *e no la' at all and therefore de!riation of  !ro!ert" under such a la' 'ould iolate Article 31(1) 'hich !roides that no !erson shall *e de!ried of his !ro!ert" sae *" authorit" of la', i#e# a alid la'# -ut since 31(1) is one of the articles a*rogated *" Article 31C, minorities can *e de!ried of  their !ro!erties held !riatel" or u!on !u*lic charita*le or religious trust, *" a la' 'hich is inalid# In sum sum Article 31C is a monstrous monstrous outrage on the Constitution# Constitution# In the entire histor" of li*ert", neer 'ere so man" millions of !eo!le de!ried of so man" fundamental rights in one s'ee! as *" the insertion of Article 31C# e Toc%ueille remar.ed that nothing is more arduous than the a!!renticeshi! of li*ert"# A Pal.hiala rightl" remar.s 'ith grief in this conte+t that It is a measure of our immaturit" as a democrac" and the utter a!ath" of our !eo!le that the *etra"al of our *asic freedoms e+cited hardl" an" !u*lic de*ate#  The four attri*utes of of a totalitarian state are are (1) Constitutional to the ruling !art" to faour its o'n mem*ers, (:) enial of the right to dissent or to o!!ose, (3) enial of arious !ersonal freedoms, and ($) The states right to con2scate an"ones !ro!ert"# All All thes these e four four attr attri* i*ut utes es 'er 'ere im!l im!lici icitt in Arti Article cle 31C# 31C# The The Arti Articl cle e had had a *uil *uiltt in mechanism for the dissolution of the true democrac" that India had *een so far, cession of rule of la' and !ossi*le disintegration of the nation# The goernments argument 'as that though the !o'er of amending the Constitution must *e held to *e limitless after the :$th amendment and it can destro" human freedoms under Article 31C, the legislature 'ill not use the !o'er# The ans'er to this is contained in the 'ords of ; - eats 5o oernment has the right, 'hether to atter atter fanatics or in mere aguenes aguenesss of mind, to forge an instrument instrument of t"rann" t"rann" and sa" that it 'ill neer *e used#
insurance com!anies hae *een nationalied under a la', 'hich !roided for 2+ed amounts !a"a*le on the ac%uisition of all their assets and lia*ilities, the amounts haing *een 2+ed on a *asis 'hich 'as not ociall" disclosed either to !arliament or to the !u*lic *ut 'hich trans!ired to *e !ositiel" a*surd# 4ome com!anies com!anies found that the amounts the" the" receied receied 'ere 'ere less than the alue of  their goernment securities and the amounts of their *an. *alance and of their currenc" notes after !roiding for all their lia*ilities? in other 'ords, there 'as a *latant re!udiation of  national de*t# >ne insurance com!an" 'as !aid s 10, 000 for ac%uisition of its net assets 'orth more than s :3,00,000# a's for ac%uisition of coal mines 'ere also !assed, under 'hich all assets of the nationalised com!anies 'ere ta.en oer *ut none of their lia*ilities? and further, all the creditors of the com!anies are statutoril" de!ried of eer" charge or securit" 'hich had *een created on the com!an"s assets#  The net result 'as that the *an.s 'hich had adanced mone" to the com!anies, lost their their !rinci !rinci!al !al,, inter interest est and sec securi urit"? t"? de*ent de*entur ure e holder holderss los lostt their their entir entire e ca!ita ca!ital? l? e+em!lo"ees of the com!anies 'ho retired *efore nationalisation lost their right to !ension and other dues? and traders lost the !rice of the goods the" had gien on credit# Thus innumera*le innocent citiens found their !ro!ert" irtuall" con2scated outr outrig ight ht as a side side e eec ectt of the the la' la' e+!r e+!ro! o!ri riat atin ing g the the co colli llier er" " co com! m!an anie ies# s# Thos Those e com!anies could not discharge their lia*ilities *ecause all their assets are gone and also the derisor" amounts due to them on nationalisation 'as to *e !aid to the Comm Co mmis issi sion oner er of Clai Claims ms 'ho 'ho 'oul 'ould d not not *e a!!o a!!oin inte ted d at all all for for "ear "ears# s# 4imi 4imila larr nationalisation la's 'ere !assed for con2scation of all assets of sic. te+tile mills, 'ith statutor" a*rogation of all mortgagesand other securities in faour of creditors, 'ith the the sa same me disa disast strrous ous co cons nse% e%ue uenc nces es for for inno innoce cent nt thir third d !art !artie ies# s# Arti Articl cle e 31C 31C had had damaged the er" heart of the Constitution# 5 A Pal.hiala remar.ed This !oisonous 'eed has *een !lanted 'here it 'ill trou*le us a hundred "ears, each age 'ill hae to reconsider it#  This decision 'hich changed the entire scenario of the Indian Constitution did the three follo'ing im!ortant changes 1# Through Article 31 C too. a'a" the right to ac%uire, hold and dis!ose o the !ro!ert" under Article 19(1) (f) :# ight to !ro!ert" under Article 19(1) (f) did not !ertain to the *asic structure of the constitution (&on*le ustice# &##Jhanna) &##Jhanna) 3# Article 19(1) (f) conferred citiens the right to ac%uire, hold and dis!ose o the !ro!ert" under Article 19(1) (f) 'hich formed a !art of grou! of articles under the heading ight to reedom $# There is no necessit" for an ela*orate argument to demonstrate that !ro!ert" is intimatel" connected 'ith the ight to reedom# reedom# Artic&e =>>A

Cha!ter IGight to Pro!ert", 300A# Persons not to *e de!ried of !ro!ert" sae *" authorit" of la'no !erson shall *e de!ried of his !ro!ert" sae *" authorit" of la'# la'#  The $$th amendment act 'hich deleted article 19(1) (f) and introduced this article *rought out the follo'ing im!ortant changes 1# In ie' of the s!ecial !osition sought to *e gien to fundamental rights, the right to !ro! !ro!er ert" t",, 'hic 'hich h has has *een *een the the oc occa casi sion on for for mor more than than one one Amen Amendm dmen entt of the the Constitution, 'ould cease to *e a fundamental right and *ecome onl" a legal right# 5ecessar" amendments for this !ur!ose are *eing made to Article 19 and Article 31 is *eing deleted# It 'ould ho'eer *e ensured that the remoal of !ro!ert" from the list

of fundamental rights 'ould not aect the rights of the minorities to esta*lish and administer educational institutions of their choice# :# 4imilarl", the right of !ersons holding land for !ersonal cultiation and 'ithin ceiling limit to receie mar.et com!ensation at the mar.et alue 'ill not *e aected# 3# Pro! Pro!er ert" t",, 'hil 'hile e ce ceas asin ing g to *e a fund fundam amen enta tall righ right, t, 'oul 'ould, d, ho'e ho'ee er, r, *e gie gien n e+!ress recognition as a legal right, !roision *eing made that no !erson shall *e de!ried of his !ro!ert" sae in accordance 'ith la'#  The rights conferred conferred *" Article 19(1)(f) 19(1)(f) and Article 31 read read 'ith the undernoted undernoted entries 'ere so closel" inter'oen 'ith the 'hole fa*ric of our Constitution that those rights cannot *e torn out 'ithout leaing a /agged hole and *ro.en threads# The hole must *e mended and the *ro.en threads must *e re!laced so as to harmonise 'ith the other !arts of the Constitution# The tas. is not eas", and courts 'ill*e called u!on to ans'er !ro*lems more more formida*le than those those raised *" the Article Article 31 after it 'as amended amended a num*er of times# &o'eer some of the !ro*lems 'hich 'ill arise and the !ro*a*le lines of solution, are considered *elo' (i) That Articles 19(1) (f) and 31(:) dealt 'ith a dierent, *ut connected, as!ects of  the right to !ro!ert" is clear from seeral 4u!reme Court decisions 'hich dealt 'ith the co relation of those t'o Articles# (ii) The correct ie' 'as that the t'o Articles 'ere mutuall" e+clusie# -ut one  /udgement 'hich 'as soon corrected corrected and another /udgement 'hich 'as a /udgement !er incuriam, to the ie' that Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(:) 'ere not mutuall" e+clusie#  This /udicial conict 'as resoled *" :6th Amendment, 'hich introduced in Article 31 a ne' clause (:-) 'hich !roided that 5othing in Article 19(1)(f) shall eect an" such la' as is referred in clause (:)#  The alidit" of this Amendment as unanimousl" u!held in the Jesaananda case# The reason for this mutual e+clusieness e+clusieness 'as that that 'hen !ro!ert" !ro!ert" is ac%uired for a !u*lic !u*lic !ur!ose on !a"ment of com!ensation, the right of a citien to hold !ro!ert" is gone and the %uestion of his right to hold !ro!ert" su*/ect to reasona*le restrictions does not arise# (iii) urther, Article 19(1)(f) that conferred citiens the right to ac%uire, hold and dis!ose of !ro!ert" formed !art of a grou! of articles under the heading ight to reedom# It re%uires no ela*orate argument to demonstrate that !ro!ert" is intimatel" connected 'ith the right to freedom# Article 31 a!!eared under the heading ight to Pro!ert"? for the right to freedom conferred *" Article 19(1)(f) 'ould *e 'orth little if  the !ro!ert" 'hen ac%uired could *e ta.en a'a" *" la'# &ence Article# 31 !roided that !riate !riate !ro!ert !ro!ert" " could *e ac%uired ac%uired onl" for a !u*lic !u*lic !ur!ose !ur!ose and on !a"ment of  com!en com!ensat sation ion (later (later amount amount)# )# There There is nothin nothing g in the 4tatem 4tatement ent of >*/ect >*/ectss and easons to sho' that Parliament no longer loo.s u!on the right to ac%uire, hold and dis!ose of !ro!ert" as a !art of the ight to reedom# (i) The retention of Article# 19(1)(a) to (e) and (g) is a clear indication to the contrar"# contrar"#  That su*clauses (d), (e) and (f) of Article# 19(1)(f)(1) 'ere interlin.ed is clear from their !roisions as 'ell as from su*Article (6) 'hich goerned each of those su*clauses# The meaning of  Article 19(1) (f) has *een considered and it is *eing su*mitted that the 4u!reme Court correctl" held that the right conferred *" Article 19(1)(d) 'as not a right of free moement sim!liciter, *ut a s!ecial right to moe freel" throughout the territor" of  India 'ith a ie' to secure, among other things, the unit" of India 'hich a narro' !roincialism 'ould den"# () This right of free moement 'as not limited to traelling throughout India, *ecause it 'as accom!anied *" the further right conferred *" Article 19(1) (e) to reside and settle in an" !art of India, as also the right conferred *" Article 19(1)(f) to ac%uire,

hold and dis!ose of !ro!ert", in an" !art of India# -ut a right to settle in an" !art of  India means not onl" a right to hae a !lace to lie in, *ut also a !lace to 'or. in, for Article 19(1)(g) conferson eer" citien the right to !ractise an" !rofession, or to carr" on an" occu!ation, trade or *usiness# (i) urther, Article 19(1)(a) confers on eer" citien the right to the freedom of  s!eech and e+!ression, 'hich right includes the freedom of the !ress a right 'hich is *asic to democrac"# democrac"# -ut a !ress needs a *uilding or *uildings to house it, and moa*le !ro!ert" to 'or. it, so that 'ithout the right to ac%uire, hold and dis!ose of !ro!ert", ther there e ca can n *e no free eedo dom m of the the !re !ress ss## And the the sa same me is *ro *roadl" adl" true true of the the fundam fundament ental al right right confer conferre red d *" Artic Article le 19(1)( 19(1)(c)t c)the he right right to form form ass associ ociati ations ons or unions unionsfor for normal normall" l" the 'or.i 'or.ing ng of ass associ ociati ations ons and unions unions inol inoles es the right right to ac%uire, hold and dis!ose of !ro!ert"# ;hat then is the eect of deleting Article 19(1) (f), 'hich conferred the right to ac%uire, hold and dis!ose of !ro!ert", and of deleting Artic Article le 31 'hic 'hich h !ro !roid ided ed for for the the ac ac%u %uis isit itio ion n of !ro! !ro!er ert" t" for for !u*li !u*licc !ur! !ur!os ose e on !a"ment of com!ensation (later called amount)Q To these %uestions the 4tatement of  >*/ects and easons gies no ans'erit is dou*tful 'hether those 'ho framed the !ro!ert" amendments 'ere een a'are of their eect on other fundamental rights retained in Article 19(1)(f)(1), and on the !olitical unit" of India 'hich Article 19(1)(f) (1)(d), (e), (f) and (g) 'as intended, inter alia, to su*sere, along 'ith other !roisions of our Constitution# At an" rate, the framers on these amendments hae !roided no soluti sol utions ons for the !ro*l !ro*lem, em, 'hich 'hich the !ro!e !ro!ert" rt"am amend endmen ments ts ineit ineita*l a*l" " raise# raise# >ne further com!lication must *e noted here# Although Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31(:) had *een made mutuall" e+clusie *" Article 31(:-), there 'as no such mutual e+clusieness e+clusieness *et'een Article Article 31(:) and the right to !ractise a !rofession or to carr" on an" occu!ation, trade or *usiness conferred conferred *" Article 19(1)(g)# This right 'as su*/ect to restrictions mentioned in Article 19(1)(f)(E)# -ut trade and *usiness is ca!a*le of *eing ac%uired, as 4ection :99(:) of  the oernment of India Act, 1936, clearl" sho'ed# -" 'hat test is the alidit" of the la' ac%uiring !ro!ert", and a la' ac%uiring trade or *usiness, including industrial and commercial underta.ings, to *e /udgedQ The :6 th Amendment inserted in Article 31 a ne' su* clause (:) 'ith the follo'ing !roiso Proided that in ma.ing an" la' for the com!ulsor" ac%uisition of an" !ro!ert" of an educational institution esta*lished and administered *" minorit", referred to in clause (1) of Article 30, the 4tate shall insure that e amount 2+ed *" or determined under such la' for the ac%uisition of such !ro!ert" is such as 'ould not restrict or a*rogate the right guaranteed under that clause#  This !roiso recognised the fact that the alua*le right conferred conferred *" Article 30(1) on minorities to esta*lish educational institutions of their choice 'ould *e destro"ed if  ade% ade%ua uate te co com! m!en ensa sati tion on 'as 'as not not made made for for ac ac%u %uis isit itio ion n of the the !ro! !ro!er ert" t" of such such institutions# Political e+!edienc" ma" re%uire that minorities should not *e alienated *" de!riing them of their cherished rights, es!eciall" 'hen minorities are as large as the" are in India# 4!ecial rights are conferred on minorities *ecause in a democratic countr" 'ith adult uniersal surage, ma/orities *" irtue of their num*ers can !rotect themseles# -ut it does seem illogical and un/ust to leae out ma/orit" educational institutions from the same !rotection, unless it 'as *elieed that ma/orities, de!ried of their !o'er to o!!ress minorities, 'ould not 'ish to o!!ress themseles# Thus, in 4tate of Jerala #
the time *eing in force or an" *uilding or structure standing thereon or a!!urtenant thereto, unless the la' relating to the ac%uisition of such land, *uilding or structure, !roides for !a"ment of com!ensation at a rate 'hich shall not *e less than the mar. mar.et et alu alue e ther thereo eoff# To ta. ta.e a'a" a'a" land land unde underr !ers !erson onal al cult culti iat atio ion n 'ith 'ithou outt com!ensation 'ould *e unfair and un/ust and the a*oe !roiso !reented such in/ustice *eing done# It 'ould *e e%uall" unfair and un/ust to ta.e a'a" from a !erson follo'ing a ocation, other than agriculture, the tools of his trade, or the !ro!ert" *" 'hich he earns his liing# These o*serations hae *een made *ecause the a*oe !roisos relating relating to !ro!ert", 'hich hae *een retained in the cha!ter on fundamental rights rights,, recog recognis nise e the in/ust in/ustice ice ofcon2 ofcon2sca scator tor" " la's la's 'hich 'hich im!ing im!inge e on fundam fundament ental al rights# In the a*sence of an" rational e+!lanation in the 4tatement of >*/ects and easons easons for deleting the right to !ro!ert" from the categor" of fundamental rights, the relief against in/ustice !roided *" the $$th Amendment a!!ears to hae *een guided *" !olitical e+!edienc"large minorities and tillers of the soil hae otes to gie or 'ithhold# >r it ma" *e that the reason 'as more com!le+# com!le+#  The anata Part" haing redeemed its i ts !ledge, it 'as left to the 4u!reme Court to determine, in the light of the !roisions of our Constitution, 'hether the !ledge can *e constitutionall" redeemed, and if so to 'hat e+tent# i.e'ise there are a lot man" as!ects and long term eils gien rise *" $$th Amendment# In short the a*oe discussion sho's that it is eas" to ma.e an electoral !romise to delete right to !ro! !ro!er ert" t" fro from the the list list of fund funda ame ment ntal al righ ights? ts? it is not not ea eas" s" to 'or or. . out out the the conse%uences of that !romise and em*od" them in a Constitution Amendment -ill# 5orrmall 5o mall", ", amen amendm dmen entt !ro! !ro!os osin ing g far far rea each chin ing g chan change gess in the the Co Cons nsti titu tutio tion n are are su*mitted to a 4elect Committee for scrutin", and re!ort# If that course 'as not follo'ed, it is dicult to resist the conclusion that the s!onsors of the !ro!ert" amendments realied that those amendments 'ould not stand the scrutin" of a 4elect Committee 'ith a !o'er to e+amine 'itnesses# The course of 2rst redeeming an electoral !romise *" amending the Constitution and then leaing it to the courts to 'or. out the conse%uences of the amendments, must a!!ear attractie# And that course 'as follo'ed, in the con2dent *elief that the court 'ould not shir. their dut" of inter!reting the Constitution een if Parliament !referred silence to s!eech as to its real intentions#  The amendment 'as *rought *rought out 'ithout realiing realiing the follo'ing dra' *ac.s *ac.s (1) The close relation of !ro!ert" 'ith other fundamental rights, 'hich the anata Part" 'as !ledged to restore? (:) The eect of this change on the legislatie !o'er to ac%uire and re%uisition !ro!ert"? and (3) The correlation correlation of fundamental rights to irectie !rinci!les of state !olic"# !olic"# Im7&ication$

(i) The ight to Pro!ert" 'ould no' *e a Constitutional ight and not a undamental ight# A legislation iolating the constitutional right to !ro!ert" could no' *e challenged onl" in &igh Courts and not directl" in the 4u!reme Court# (ii)ue to the deletion of Article 31 the oernment 'as no longer under an o*ligation to com!ensate !ersons 'hose land had *een ac%uired as !er a la' !assed *" Parliament# As of no', it is, *e"ond the sco!e of m" research and understanding as to 'hethe 'hetherr Pro!o Pro!osit sition ion (ii) (ii) i#e i#e## de!ri de!riati ation on of !ro!e !ro!ert" rt" 'ithou 'ithoutt com!en com!ensat sation ion is still still legall" tena*le es!eciall" in light of the 4u!reme CourtHs ruling, in the
that the onl" reasona*le manner to de!rie a !erson of his !ro!ert" 'ould *e to oer him, him, rea easo sona na*l *le e co com! m!en ensa sati tion on for for the the sa same me## This This disc discus ussi sion on ho'e ho'ee err is not not com!letel" releant for the !ur!ose of this !ost# The onl" releant !oint is the fact that under the Constitution no !erson can *e de!ried of their !ro!ert" 'ithout the authorit" of la'# The t'o releant conce!ts that no' re%uire re%uire to *e e+amined are H!ro!ert"H H!ro!ert"H D HAuthorit" *" la'H# HPro!ert"H HPro!ert"H as understood in Article 300A  The o*ious 2rst %uestion is as to 'hether or not Hintellectual !ro!ert"H such as Hclinical trial dataH 'ould fall 'ithin the de2nition of H!ro!ert"H as understood in Article 300A# There seems to *e enough authorit" to su!!ort the !ro!osition that H!ro!ert"H as understood in Article 300A is 'ider than /ust Himmoa*le !ro!ert"H# >ne such authorit" authorit" in the conte+t conte+t of Hintellectu Hintellectual al !ro!ert" !ro!ert" rightsH rightsH is the /udgment /udgment of  the 4u!reme Court in the case of ntertainment 5et'or. India td# (5I) # 4u!er Cassette Industries td# (4CI)N$6O# In !ertinent !art the Court held the follo'ing The o'nershi! of an" co!"right li.e o'nershi! of an" other !ro!ert" must *e considered haing regard to the !rinci!les contained in article 19(1) (g) read 'ith Article 300A of  the Constitution, *esides, the human rights on !ro!ert"? The /udgment goes on further to sa" that? -ut the right of !ro!ert" is no longer a fundamental right# It 'ill *e su*/ect to reasona*le restrictions# In terms of Article 300A of the Constitution, it ma" *e su*/ect to the conditions laid do'n therein, namel", it ma" *e 'holl" or in !art ac%uired in !u*lic interest and on !a"ment of reasona*le com!ensation# The fact that the 4u!reme Court recognies Hco!"rightH to fall 'ithin Article 300A is indicatie that een een Hcli Hclini nica call tria triall data dataH, H, co coll llec ecte ted d afte afterr e+te e+tens nsi ie e e+!er +!erim imen enti ting ng,, shou should ld in all all li.elihood fall 'ithin the de2nition of H!ro!ert"H as understood in Article 300A# HAuthorit" *" la'H as understood in Article 300A The term Hla'H as de2ned in Article 300A is understood to mean onl" legislation or a statutor" rule or order# The term Hla'H as understood *" Article 300A 'ill not include e+ecutie 2ats# The source of  the Hla'H de!riing a !erson of his !ro!ert" has to *e necessaril" traced, through a statute, to the legislature# ;hile summariing the entire conce!t of ight to Pro!ert"## >nce u!on a time, it 'as thought that the so called !ersonal rights li.e the right to ote, right to freedom of s!eech or !ersonal li*ert" occu!ied a higher status in the hierarch" of alues than !ro!ert" right# As a result the courts 'ere more astute to stri.e do'n legislations, 'hich im!inged u!on these rights, than u!on !ro!ert" rights# -ut earned &and, a great /udge, felt that the distinction *et'een the t'o 'as unreal and said that no*od" seems to hae *esto'ed an" thought on the %uestion 'h" !ro!ert" rights are not !ersonal rights#  The 4u!reme Court of America 'hich once gae hos!ita*le %uarter to the distinction *et'een !ersonal rights and !ro!ert" rights and accorded a !referred !osition to the former, has gien a decent *urial *oth to the distinction and the !referred status of the so called !ersonal rights or li*erties in 197: *" sa"ing the dichotom" *et'een !ersonal li*erties and !ro!ert" rights is a false one# Pro!ert" does not hae rights# Peo!le hae rights# The right to en/o" !ro!ert" 'ithout unla'ful de!riation, not less than the right to s!ea. or the right to trael is in truth a !ersonal right, 'hether the !ro!ert" in %uestion *e a 'elfare che%ue, a home or a saings account# In fact, a fundamental interde!endence e+ists *et'een the !ersonal right to li*ert" and the !ersonal right in !ro!ert"# 5either could hae meaning 'ithout the other#  That rights in!ro!ert" are *asic ciil rights has long *een recognised#This again 'ould sho' that if the fundamental right to freedom of s!eech or !ersonal li*ert" !ertains to *asic structure, there is eer" reason that the fundamental right to !ro!ert" should also !ertain to it, as the former set of rights could hae no meaning 'ithout the latter# latter# Protection of freedom de!ends ultimatel" u!on the !rotection of inde!endence, 'hich

can onl" *e secured, if !ro!ert" is made secure# earned &and long ago s!o.e of the false ho!e of the courts !rotecting li*ert" if it dies in the hearts of men# >ne reason, 'hich 'ould induce its death in their hearts, is an atmos!here in 'hich li*ert" deries no sustenance from a sense of securit" to !ro!ert" created *" !utting it *e"ond the outcome of the ote of shifting ma/orities# >ur Constitution 'as framed *" an e+traordinar" *od" of men, a *od" of  men 'hose 'hose com*ined com*ined irtues irtues an talents talents hae seldom seldom if eer *een *een e%ualed e%ualed in this countr"# The" !ossessed that rare %ualit" of mind, 'hich unites theor" and !ractice#  The" understood the uni%ue conditions of the countr" and the enduring needs and as!irations of the !eo!le, and the" ada!ted their !rinci!les to the character and genius of the nation# The" isualised a societ" in 'hich eer" citien should *e the o'ner of some !ro!ert" not onl" as a means of sustenance *ut also as a one of  securit" from t"rann" and economic o!!ression and the" !ut that right a*oe the ote of transient ma/orit"# The" enacted Article 39 and en/oined u!on the state to *rea. u! the concentration of !ro!ert" in the hands of the fe' and its distri*ution among all#  There is no reason toda" toda" to thin. that the t"!e of of societ" the" isualised is in an" an" 'a" unsuited to our !resent condition# Pro!ert" Pro!ert" is the most am*iguous of all categories# It coers a multitude of rights, 'hich hae nothing in common, e+ce!t that the" are e+ercised *" !ersons and enforced *" the state# It is therefore idle to !resent a case for or against !riate !ro!ert" 'ithout s!ecif"ing the e+tent or alue thereof# Arguments, 'hich su!!ort or demolish certain .inds of !ro!ert", hae no a!!lication to others# Considerations, 'hich are conclusie in one stage of economic deelo!ment, ma" *e irreleant in the ne+t# or things are not similar in %ualit" merel" *ecause the" are identical in name# If it *e assumed that the fundamental right to !ro!ert" does not !ertain to *asic structure and can *e amended *" !arliament 'ithout a referendum as !ro!osed in the case of other fundamental rights regarding citiens? then therecan *e no dou*t that !ro!ert" is dura*le and nondura*le nondura*le consumer goods, and in the means of of !roduction 'or.ed 'or.ed *" their o'ners must *e !rotected *" the higher la' on the same logic on 'hich it is !ro!osed to safeguard *" that la' the interest in land of small tenure holders and of  agri agricu cult ltur uris ists ts 'ith 'ithin in ce ceili iling ng limi limit# t# The The o'ne o'ners rs of thes these e !ro! !ro!er erti ties es must must *e !aid !aid com!ensation *ased on mar.et alue in the eent of the state or a cor!oration o'ned *" the state ac%uiring them for !u*lic !ur!ose# ;hile these t"!es of !ro!ert" can *e /usti2ed as a necessar" condition of a free free and and !ur! !ur!os osef eful ul life, life, no such such co cons nsid ider erat atio ions ns are are aai aaila la*l *le e in res es!e !ect ct of the the !ro!ert" in the means of !roduction not 'or.ed or directl" managed *" their o'ners as it is not an instrument of freedom since it gies !o'er not onl" oer things *ut through things oer !ersons# It is !recisel" the concentration of this t"!e of !ro!ert" 'hich the framers of the Constitution 'anted to *rea. u! under Article 39 and dist distri ri*u *ute te amon among g the the hae haeno nots ts and and ther there e is no in/u in/ust stic ice e in dete deterrmini mining ng the the com!ensation !a"a*le to the de!ried o'ners on !rinci!les of social /ustice# -ut this is 'here 'e hae to reall" s!are a thoughtustice J J 'l of
com!ensation for !ro!ert" ac%uired or re%uisitioned for the !ur!ose of the Bnion or the 4tate or for an" other !u*lic !ur!ose, is to *e determined, and the form and manner in 'hich such com!ensation is to *e gien# The a*oe entries 'ere deleted *" the 4eenth Amendment 'hich came into force from 1 5oem*er, 196E, and the follo'ing ne' ntr" $: 'as su*stituted in ist III Ac%uisition and e%uisitioning of  Pro!ert"#