Article 31 of the Costitution of India with Case law
Here is a detailed explanation of Article 31 of the Constitution of India along with relevant case laws:
🇮🇳 Article 31 – Right to Property (Now Repealed)
Status: REPEALED by the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1978, but still relevant for historical and legal interpretation.
🧾 Original Text of Article 31 (Before Repeal)
Article 31 provided for:
No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.
No property shall be compulsorily acquired or requisitioned except:
for a public purpose,
under a law,
and upon payment of compensation.
It was part of the Fundamental Rights (Part III) and protected the individual's right to private property.
🛑 Repeal of Article 31:
By: 44th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1978
Why? To weaken the fundamental right to property and allow land reform and redistribution without judicial interference.
Article 31 was deleted, and a new provision — Article 300A — was inserted in Part XII.
📌 Current Position: Article 300A – Right to Property
“No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.”
It is now a constitutional legal right, not a fundamental right.
No remedy under Article 32 (writ for fundamental rights), but can seek remedy under Article 226 (High Courts).
⚖️ Key Case Laws on Article 31 (Before and After Repeal):
1. Kameshwar Singh v. State of Bihar (1952)
Facts: Land reform law abolished the zamindari system.
Held: Compensation must be just and fair, otherwise it violates Article 31.
Significance: Early test of the government’s power to acquire property.
2. State of West Bengal v. Bela Banerjee (1954)
Held: Compensation must be equivalent to the value of the property.
Significance: Strengthened the "right to compensation".
3. R.C. Cooper v. Union of India (Bank Nationalisation Case, 1970)
Held: Acquisition of private property (banks) without fair compensation is unconstitutional under Article 31.
Significance: Reinforced that fundamental rights can’t be bypassed by Parliament.
4. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
Held: Parliament can amend fundamental rights but cannot destroy the "basic structure" of the Constitution.
Impact on Article 31: Made it clear that even property rights are subject to the basic structure doctrine.
5. Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
Reiterated Parliament’s limitations in amending fundamental rights.
6. Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat (1995)
Post-repeal case under Article 300A
Held: Deprivation of property is not unconstitutional if done through law, even if no compensation is provided.
🧾 Comparison: Article 31 vs Article 300A
| Aspect | Article 31 (Before 1978) | Article 300A (After 1978) |
|---|---|---|
| Nature | Fundamental Right | Constitutional Legal Right |
| Remedy | Article 32 (SC) | Article 226 (HC) |
| Compensation | Mandatory and just | Not necessarily required |
| Purpose | Protect private property | Allow land reforms & acquisition |
✅ Conclusion:
Article 31 once gave strong protection to private property as a fundamental right.
After the 44th Amendment, this right was downgraded to a legal right under Article 300A.
Today, the State can acquire property by law, and compensation is not always mandatory.
RELATED Blog
0 comments