Right to Property-A Constitutional and Human Right

1. In January 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment emphasizing the importance of the right to property, underscoring its status as a constitutional and human right.
2. This verdict addresses the case of land acquisition for the Bengaluru-Mysuru Infrastructure Corridor Project and highlights the implications of delayed compensation for affected landowners.

The Case Background

1. The case is about the Bengaluru-Mysuru Infrastructure Corridor Project (BMICP), where landowners faced a prolonged delay in receiving compensation for their acquired properties.
2. The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) issued a preliminary notification in January 2003 for land acquisition.
3. Possession of the land was taken in November 2005 and handed over to Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprise and its sister company, Nandi Economic Corridor Enterprises Ltd.

The Core Issue

1. Landowners, including Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz and others, had to wait for over 22 years to receive compensation for their properties.
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) determined compensation only in April 2019, using the market values from 2011.
3. The affected parties argued that this delay and outdated valuation constituted a denial of justice and contravened the principles enshrined in Article 300-A of the Constitution.

Key Observations by the Supreme Court

1. The Nature of the Right to Property: Though no longer a fundamental right, the right to property retains its status as a constitutional right under Article 300-A.

1. Deprivation of property without adequate compensation violates constitutional principles and human rights.

2. Delay in Compensation: The Court criticized the "lethargic attitude" of state authorities, attributing the delay in compensation to their inaction.

1. The appellants—landowners—were forced to approach courts repeatedly over two decades to claim their rightful compensation. The delay resulted in financial and emotional distress for the landowners.

3. Inflation and Loss of Value: The Supreme Court noted that the value of money diminishes over time due to inflation.

1. Compensation based on 2003 market values would not reflect the current economic reality, leading to injustice for the affected landowners.

Judgment and Directions

1. Revised Valuation Date: The Supreme Court exercised its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure complete justice.

1. It directed the SLAO to determine the compensation based on market values prevailing on April 22, 2019.

2. Timelines for Action: The SLAO was instructed to pass a fresh award within two months.

1. The Court emphasized promptness in determining and disbursing compensation in cases of land acquisition to avoid similar injustices in the future.

3. Rights of Appeal: The Court clarified that parties retain the right to challenge the revised award if they are dissatisfied with the compensation determined.

What is Article 142? Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to pass decrees or make orders necessary for doing complete justice in any matter pending before it. Enables the Court to exercise executive and legislative functions in specific scenarios, including issuing guidelines or directives to governmental authorities. Permits the Court to intervene in matters concerning public interest, human rights, constitutional values, or fundamental rights, safeguarding them against violations or infringements. Elevates the Supreme Court's role as the ultimate interpreter of the law and protector of the Constitution, fostering judicial activism and innovation. The Concept of Complete Justice Derived from Article 142, it ensures justice by addressing legal gaps and overriding provisions when necessary. Involves interpreting laws considering broader constitutional principles, societal needs, and evolving standards of justice.

What is the Right to Property?

1. The right to property ceased to be a fundamental right with the Constitution (44^th Amendment) Act, 1978.
2. Despite this change, it remains a constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution, which states that no person shall be deprived of their property except by the authority of law.
3. In a welfare state, the right to property is also recognized as a human right, forming part of the broader dimensions of human rights in contemporary jurisprudence.

Constitutional Provisions Related to Right to Property

1. Article 31: Originally a fundamental right, it was repealed and replaced by Article 300-A in 1978.
2. 1^st Amendment Act, 1951: Incorporated Articles 31A and 31B, along with the Ninth Schedule.

1. Article 31A: Gave the state the power to acquire property or alter property rights without being challenged for inconsistency with fundamental rights.
2. Article 31B: Ensured that laws included in the Ninth Schedule could not be struck down, even if they conflicted with fundamental rights.
3. Ninth Schedule: Contains laws that are immune from judicial review, such as land reform laws.

3. 25^th Amendment Act, 1971: Inserted Article 31C to protect state laws aimed at resource distribution under Article 39(b) and (c) from constitutional challenges.

1. Barred courts from reviewing the State’s actions, even if arbitrary or irrational.

4. 42^nd Amendment Act, 1976: Expanded Article 31C to include all Directive Principles, protecting laws from being struck down under Articles 14 and 19 if they served public welfare.
5. 44^th Amendment Act, 1978: Removed the right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property as a fundamental right. Property became a constitutional right under Article 300-A in Chapter IV of Part XII.

Judicial Interpretation Related to Right to Property

1. Sankari Prasad Case, 1951: The Supreme Court upheld the 1^st Amendment Act, affirming Parliament's authority to amend the Constitution under Article 368.

1. The Court ruled that amendments affecting fundamental rights are not restricted by Article 13(2), which provides for judicial review to invalidate laws conflicting with fundamental rights.

2. Bella Banerjee Case, 1954: The Court mandated that the government must provide just compensation when acquiring property compulsorily.
3. Kesavananda Bharati Case, 1973: The Supreme Court clarified that constitutional amendments are not limited by Article 13(2).

1. Parliament can amend the Constitution, including altering or removing provisions related to the right to property.

4. Minerva Mills Case, 1980: The Court struck down the expanded scope of Article 31C, which aimed to include all Directive Principles under its protection.

1. Provisions barring judicial review of Article 31C were also invalidated, reinforcing constitutional checks and balances.

5. Waman Rao Case, 1981: The Court ruled that constitutional amendments and laws added to the Ninth Schedule before the Kesavananda Bharati case remain immune from judicial challenge.

1. However, amendments added post-Kesavananda Bharati are subject to judicial review under the basic structure doctrine.

6. Vidya Devi Case, 2020: The Supreme Court held that forcibly dispossessing a person of private property without due process violates human rights and the constitutional right under Article 300-A.

Impact of State Control Over Property

Positive Impacts

Negative Impacts

Equitable Redistribution: Promotes social justice by redistributing resources to marginalized groups, reducing wealth inequality. Resource Management: Ensures sustainable use of resources like land, water, and minerals for public benefit. Public Welfare Projects: Facilitates infrastructure development, healthcare, and education by acquiring land for public purposes. Protection of Vulnerable Groups: Provides safeguards against exploitation for disadvantaged communities.

Limitations on Private Ownership: Reduces individual property rights, potentially discouraging private investment. Reduced Incentives: Owners may lack motivation to improve properties due to state restrictions. Economic Stagnation: Overregulation or excessive control can stifle market-driven growth and innovation.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling highlights the importance of safeguarding the rights of property owners in India. It underscores the principle that while developmental projects are essential, they must not come at the expense of justice and fairness to individuals whose property is acquired. This judgment serves as a reminder to state authorities of their duty to act promptly and fairly in such matters, ensuring that constitutional and human rights are upheld.