Article 31 of the Indian Constitution: The Evolution of Right to Property in the Modern Era

Introduction

Article 31 of the Indian Constitution, which deals with the right to property, has undergone significant changes over the years. Initially, it provided strong protection to property rights, but subsequent amendments have altered its scope and impact. In this article, we will delve into the historical context, relevant case laws, and the current status of Article 31 in the modern era.

Historical Context of Article 31

Article 31 was part of the original Constitution and aimed to strike a balance between individual property rights and the state's power to acquire property for public welfare. The original provision provided substantial protection to property owners, making it difficult for the government to acquire land. However, this approach faced criticism for impeding development and social welfare initiatives.

Evolution through Constitutional Amendments

1. The Fourth Amendment Act (1955):

The Fourth Amendment Act introduced changes to Article 31, allowing the state to acquire private property for public purposes by compensating the owner at fair market value. This amendment aimed to strike a balance between individual rights and the needs of the community.

2. The Seventeenth Amendment Act (1964):

The Seventeenth Amendment Act brought significant changes to Article 31. It introduced the concept of "compulsory acquisition" and established that compensation need not always be in the form of market value. The amendment provided for the acquisition of property in the interest of the general public and enabled the state to enact laws to regulate the acquisition and disposition of property.

Relevant Case Laws Shaping Article 31

1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973):

The landmark Kesavananda Bharati case clarified that the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution does not extend to destroying its basic structure. The Supreme Court held that the right to property was not an absolute fundamental right but a constitutional right, subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public welfare. This case marked a significant turning point in the interpretation of Article 31 and affirmed the government's authority to acquire property for public welfare.

2. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992):

In the Indra Sawhney case, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of reservation in public employment. The court held that reservation, which involves the distribution of state resources, falls within the ambit of Article 31 and can be imposed for ensuring social justice and equal opportunity.

Current Status and Implications in the Modern Era

The 44th Amendment Act (1978) further amended Article 31, removing the right to property as a fundamental right. Instead, it became a legal right under Article 300-A, subject to legislative restrictions. This change aimed to strike a balance between individual rights and the state's power to acquire property for public welfare.

In the modern era, the emphasis has shifted towards sustainable development, infrastructure growth, and social welfare. The amended Article 31 reflects the evolving needs of a developing nation while ensuring fair compensation for property owners.

The Land Acquisition Act, 2013, is a comprehensive legislation that governs the acquisition of land by the government for public purposes. It provides for a transparent and participatory process, ensuring fair compensation, rehabilitation, and resettlement of affected individuals and communities.

Conclusion

The evolution of Article 31 highlights the changing dynamics between individual property rights and the state's power to acquire property for public welfare. The amendments and case laws have struck a balance that allows for development and social justice. The current legal framework, comprising Article 300-A and the Land Acquisition Act, acknowledges the importance of fair compensation and inclusive development in the modern era. It remains imperative to ensure that property rights are protected, while also enabling the state to undertake initiatives that benefit society as a whole.