Political Science, asked by czten, 1 year ago

why was the 'Right to property' removed from the list of fundamental rights?

Answers

Answered by santhoshkkp
0
This is a pretty fascinating topic and an interesting event in India's Constitutional history. As the Constitution was originally drafted, the right to property was enshrined as a fundamental right. By the 44th Amendment to the Constitution, the right to property was removed as a fundamental right and instead, a new provision was added to the Constitution i.e. Article 300-A. 

The Right to Property prior to the 44th Amendment.

As I mentioned in the introductory paragraph, the right to hold property was a fundamental right in the Constitution was originally drafted. The right to property was a threefold right:

Article 19(1)(f) stated that every person had a right to acquire any property by lawful means, hold it as his own and dispose of it freely, limited only by reasonable restrictions to serve the exigencies of public welfare any other restrictions that may be imposed by the State to protect interests of Scheduled Tribes.Article 31(1) provided that no person shall be deprived of his right to property save by the authority of law.Article 31(2) provided that if the State wants to acquire the private property of an individual or to requisition (that is to take over the property of a temporary period), it could do so only if such acquisition or requisition is for a public purpose and that compensation would be payable to the owner.

Prior to the deletion under the 44th Amendment Act, several amendments were made by successive Congress governments eroding these rights. The following are some of the significant changes:

The adequacy of compensation payable on acquisition or requisition could not be questioned in a court of law.The obligation of the Government to pay compensation was watered down by addition of exceptions to such requirements. These exceptions included if the Government acquired property for estates or intermediate rights (Article 31A), or where land was acquired under certain specified enactments (Article 31B) and acquisitions aimed towards implementation of the Directive Principle set out in Article 39(b)-(c)[1] which was aimed at social redstribution of wealth (Article 31C).
Controversy relating to Article 31C - Keshavanand Bharati

With respect to Artcile 31C, please note that the provision was challenged under the celebrated decision of Keshavanand Bharati v. State of Kerala (AIR 1973 SC 146). One of the provisions of Article 31C stated that any legislative declaration that a particular law was made to implement the directive principles set out in Article 39(b)-(c) shall not be open to question in the court.

This would mean that any such law could not be challenged by way of a judicial review, which is a right that would otherwise have been available

The Supreme Court in this case had held that judicial review is one of the essential features of the Constitution. The Legislature could not, by passing a Constitutional amendment dilute the right to seek judicial review which is one of the essential features of the Constitution.

However, the Parliament even after this decision, extended the applicability of Article 31 not just to Article 39(b) and (c) but any directive principle 
Answered by PriyankaTiwari2004
1
Fundamental Rights via the Constitution 44th Amendment Act, 1978. It was instead made a constitutional right under Article 300A which states that. " No person can be deprived of his property except by authority of law." ... So, they removed it from Fundamental Rights and diluted its standing.
I hope this answer will help you so please please please please please please market as brainliest answer.
Similar questions