Read also: Property rights of successors vs candidates: All about Supreme Court decision on Nomine`s rights Fundamental rights considered essential to a normal existence are enshrined in the Indian Constitution and enforced by law. On the other hand, human rights, which are considered vital, are the guarantee of a life of dignity and equality. In India, section 31 (1) provides for a first limitation and a paragraph 2: No property shall be forcibly acquired or forcibly confiscated unless it is in the public interest and there is a law providing for the acquisition of property for an amount to be determined by that law, and no such law may be challenged by any court on the ground that the amount so fixed is insufficient to satisfy the other two. Restrictions. Article 19 (1) (f) gives citizens the freedom to acquire, hold and dispose of property in the territory of India. But by the Constitution Amendment Act of 1978, these two sections mentioned above were deleted and a new Chapter IV was added to Part XII, which contained only one section 300A. The legal status of the right to property has changed from fundamental to constitutional right. As a result, people were not allowed to appeal directly to the Supreme Court for violation of property rights, although they could still invoke the jurisdiction of the IOC Supreme Court U/A 226. In Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State Gujrat,[5] it was held that the u/A 300A property right is not a fundamental structure of the constitution. It is just a constitutional right.

Fundamental rights have been revised for many reasons. Political groups and others have called for the right to work, the right to economic assistance in unemployment, old age and similar rights to be enshrined as constitutional guarantees to solve the problems of poverty and economic insecurity[78], although these provisions have been enshrined in political principles of public policy. [79] The right to liberty and personal liberty contains a number of limiting clauses and has therefore been criticized for failing to control the sanction of powers often considered “excessive.” [78] In addition, preventive detention and suspension of fundamental rights in emergency situations. Provisions in laws such as the Internal Security Maintenance Act (MISA), the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), and the National Security Act (NSA) are a means of thwarting these fundamental rights, as they sanction excessive powers with the aim of combating domestic and cross-border terrorism and political violence without protecting civil liberties. [78] The concepts of “state security”, “ordre public” and “morality” are far-reaching. The meaning of terms such as “reasonable restrictions” and “public interest” has not been explicitly defined in the Constitution, and this ambiguity leads to unnecessary litigation. [78] Freedom to assemble peacefully and unarmed is exercised, but in some cases these assemblies are interrupted by police using non-lethal methods. [80][81] However, problems with ownership as a fundamental right began to manifest themselves when India`s Defence Act authorized the central government to require and acquire all immovable property in the public interest under the Requisition and Acquisition of Real Property Act, 1952, promulgated in 1962. When the authority began to acquire land, it became clear that the power of the State to acquire it for public use could be limited because the right to property was a fundamental right.

The right to property under Article 300-A is a human right. The doctrine of the eminent domain currently in use can help to understand this. Even though we have a constitutional property right under section 300A and a statutory right under the Transfer of Property Act 1881, the government has the power to use our property for public purposes such as building roads and bridges. Nevertheless, adequate compensation must be paid to the owner in such cases. The state can deprive a citizen of his property without the sanction of the law, the High Court of Parliament has said. Despite these government efforts, the Zamindars and other landowners whose caps were exceeded turned to the Supreme Court and used their fundamental right to property with the intention of declaring the laws unconstitutional. In order to prevent this, and in the interest of economic justice, Articles 31 and 19(1)(f) ceased to be a fundamental right and were amended as a constitutional right in the new Chapter IV, Part XII, of the Constitution as Article 300A, which still exists and follows today. In India, property is not a fundamental right, but a human right, after a corresponding change was made in 1978. To this end, Article 300-A was incorporated into the Constitution in 1978, stipulating that “no one shall be deprived of his property except by virtue of a law”.

The right not to be exploited in articles 23 and 24 contains certain provisions aimed at preventing the exploitation of the weaker strata of society by individuals or the State. [46] Article 23 prohibits human trafficking and makes it a criminal offense punishable by law, and also prohibits forced labor or any act that compels a person to work without pay if they were legally entitled not to work or receive remuneration for it. However, it allows the state to impose conscription for public purposes, including conscription and community service. [47][48] The Abolition Act 1976 was passed by Parliament to give effect to this section. [49] Section 24 prohibits the employment of children under the age of 14 in factories, mines and other hazardous workplaces. Parliament had enacted the Child Labour Prohibition and Regulation Act of 1986, which contained provisions to abolish and punish child labour and provisions for the rehabilitation of former working children. [50] Since a speedy trial is not a constitutional right of citizens, cases of fundamental rights violations take an excessive amount of time for the Supreme Court to decide, violating the legal maxim “justice delayed is deprived of justice.” [86] Section 15 prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of these grounds. This right may be invoked against both the State and individuals in the case of free access to public places of entertainment or public places of leisure managed in whole or in part from State resources. [19] However, nothing prevents the state from making special provision for women and children or for socially and educationally backward classes of citizens, including scheduled castes and scheduled tribes.

This exception is provided for because these categories of people are considered disadvantaged and particularly vulnerable. [20] The state of Himachal Pradesh (the defendant in this case) forcibly acquired the land around 1967-68 for road construction without following due process. As an illiterate woman, Devi was unaware of her rights regarding her property. She became aware of her right to compensation in 2010 when her neighbouring owner did the same with regard to the acquisition of her land from the state of Himachal Pradesh. Ownership is defined in section 2(c) of the Benami Transactions Prohibition Act 1988 as follows: “Property” means “any type of property, whether movable or immovable, tangible or intangible, including any right or interest in such property”. Ownership is defined in section 2 (11) of the Sale of Goods Act 1930 as follows: “Ownership” means general ownership of property, not just a particular characteristic.