SUPREME COURT REAFFIRMS PROPERTY RIGHTS IN INDIA

GS2 – POLITY

The Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed the constitutional significance of property rights, emphasizing their protection under Article 300A, even though they are no longer fundamental rights. This judgment arose from a case involving delayed compensation for land acquired for the Bengaluru-Mysuru Infrastructure Corridor Project.

Key Highlights

1. Historical Context:
   • Originally a fundamental right under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31.
   • Relegated to a legal right by the 44th Amendment in 1978, now protected under Article 300A.
2. Article 300A:
   • States that no person shall be deprived of their property except by authority of law.
   • Ensures legal procedures and fair compensation for property acquisition.
3. Supreme Court’s Stance:
   • Right to property is linked to human rights, including livelihood and shelter.
   • State cannot acquire property without due process and adequate compensation.

Judicial Precedents

• A K Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950): Upheld state power to acquire property for public order.
• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): Introduced the basic structure doctrine, indirectly impacting property rights.
• Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat (1995): Affirmed that property rights are not part of the basic structure.
• Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2020): Highlighted state obligations in timely compensation.

Recent Judgment Implications

• Prompt Compensation: Karnataka government was criticized for delays, with the court invoking Article 142 to adjust land valuation to 2019 for fair compensation.
• Justice Delivery: The court reiterated that “justice delayed is justice denied.”

Role of Eminent Domain

• Principle: Allows the state to acquire private property for public use, ensuring fair compensation.
• Supreme Court’s Ruling: Stresses that eminent domain must respect individual rights and follow due legal process.

The Supreme Court’s ruling reinforces the constitutional safeguards surrounding property rights, emphasizing that the state’s actions must align with principles of justice, fairness, and due process, ensuring a balance between public interests and individual rights.