ANALYZING THE AMBIT AND SCOPE OF ARTICLE 31

ABSTRACT

This paper examines the evolution and implications of Article 31 of the Indian Constitution, focusing on the right to property and its contentious nature amidst constitutional amendments and judicial interpretations. The background highlights the historical context of property rights in India, particularly the significant changes introduced by the 44th Amendment Act of 1978, which abolished Article 31 and relocated its provisions to Article 300A. The research problem centers on the ambiguity surrounding the government’s authority to seize property under the doctrine of eminent domain and the inadequacies in the compensation mechanisms outlined in previous articles.

The aim of this study is to analyze the constitutional provisions and case laws related to property acquisition and evaluate their impact on individual rights and state powers. Utilizing a qualitative research design, this study reviews relevant legal texts, amendments, and landmark case laws involving property rights, particularly focusing on Articles 31, 31A, 31B, and 31C, and their interpretations by the judiciary. The findings reveal that the amendments led to a diminished status of property rights, transforming them from fundamental to constitutional rights, thereby complicating the legal landscape for property ownership and acquisition. The implications suggest that a balance must be struck between individual property rights and the state’s interest in public welfare, necessitating further reforms and judicial clarity to safeguard citizen rights while allowing for necessary state interventions.

INTRODUCTION

No person’s property may be taken away until a legal authority has been established. If property is taken into custody, the individual is entitled to compensation, according to Article 31—which underwent numerous revisions before being abolished along with Article 19(1)(g). The right to property granted by Article 19(1)(g) could have limitations placed on it for public concerns. This right became vulnerable in 1978 following the annulment of Article 31 by the 44th Amendment Act.

44TH CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, 1978

The right to property is one of the most contentious rights. Initially, the Constitution granted this right to allow individuals to enjoy their property peacefully. However, Article 31 permitted the government to seize property under legitimate authority. The term “compensation” in Article 31(2) was arbitrary, as it lacked specificity, leaving the maximum amount to government discretion. The 44th Amendment resolved this issue by relocating Article 31(1) to Article 300A in the IX Schedule and repealing Article 19(1)(g).

DOCTRINE OF EMINENT DOMAIN AND RIGHT TO PROPERTY

The Eminent Domain Doctrine, borrowed from America, grants the sovereign the right to seize private land for public use, provided compensation is offered. For instance, if Manish owns private land in Madras and the government takes his land without his consent, he would receive compensation, though possibly less than market value.

Case Law: Maharao Sahib Sri Bhim Singhji v. Union of India

In this case, the government seized unused property in urban areas for public purposes. The court rejected arguments opposing the use of urban land for the general public, even though the specific point was not addressed in the Act.

ANALYSIS OF ARTICLES

ARTICLE 31-A: Saving of Laws Providing for Acquisition of Estate, etc.

Article 31-A, added by the Constitution (First Amendment) in 1951, states that laws under any sub-clause of Clause (1) are not open to challenge on the grounds of infringing Articles 14 or 19. However, if such a law is made by a State Legislature, it must receive the President’s assent. Article 31-A was intended to validate the acquisition of zamindaries and the abolition of the Permanent Settlement, reducing social and economic disparities in agriculture.

Case Laws

• K.K. Kochuni v. State of Madras: Article 31-A (1) was applied to facilitate agrarian reforms but does not apply to laws modifying owner rights unrelated to agrarian reforms.
• P.V. Mudaliar v. Spl. Dy. Collector, Madras: The Supreme Court held that the Land Acquisition (Madras Amendment) Act, 1961, for a housing scheme did not relate to agrarian reforms, hence not protected under Article 31-A.

ARTICLE 31-B: Validation of Certain Acts and Regulations

Article 31-B, introduced by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, protects Acts in the Ninth Schedule from being void on the grounds of violating fundamental rights. Article 31-B places specified statutes beyond challenge regarding their compliance with Part III.

Case Law: Preg Ice and Oil Mfg. Mills v. Union of India

The Supreme Court held that orders not included in the Ninth Schedule could not receive Article 31-B protection, marking a limitation in extending Article 31-B’s scope to individual orders under scheduled Acts.

ARTICLE 31-C: Saving Laws Giving Effect to Certain Directive Principles

Inserted by the Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act, 1971, Article 31-C prevents laws aligned with Articles 39(b) or 39(c) from being declared void on grounds of infringing Articles 14, 19, or 31. It aims to support Directive Principles of State Policy, allowing laws intended to implement social and economic reforms to avoid judicial scrutiny under certain fundamental rights.

Case Laws

• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala: Article 31-C was upheld, but the declaratory clause was struck down as unconstitutional for limiting judicial review, a basic feature of the Constitution.
• State of U.P. v. Agra Electricity Supply Co. Ltd.: The Supreme Court held the legislation under Article 31-C as constitutionally valid for altering the compensation method.

CONCLUSION

“Improve your processes and actions so that you can do better in the future.” This is a guiding principle for the evolution of the Indian Constitution. From the First Amendment in 1951 to the 124th in 2019, the Constitution has faced both advancements and challenges. The right to property, amid these amendments, emerged as highly contentious. With the abolition of Articles 31, 19(1)(g), and part of Article 31-C, the right to property shifted from a fundamental right to a constitutional right in Article 300A.

For the Constitution to uphold its ideals, a balance is necessary between Parts III and IV, securing Directive Principles without compromising fundamental rights. The Constitution remains dynamic, with continuous reform needed to strike this balance.