Q.What difference does the property-right status change (fundamental to legal right) make?
You're viewing a preview — the full solution, concept, methods & PYQ mapping are locked.
Start your 14-day free trial to unlock the full solution →Moving the right to property out of Part III (Fundamental Rights) and into Article 300A as an
ordinary legal right, through the 44th Amendment of 1978, made three real practical differences:
it can no longer be enforced directly through the Supreme Court under Article 32, it is easier for
the government to restrict or acquire property through ordinary law, and any dispute over it must
go through the regular court system rather than the fast, direct constitutional-remedy route.
When the right to property was a Fundamental Right, a citizen whose property was taken without proper
compensation or due process could go straight to the Supreme Court under Article 32 -- the same fast,
powerful remedy available for violations of equality or personal liberty. Once it became an ordinary
legal right under Article 300A, this direct route disappeared; a citizen must instead approach an
ordinary court (a civil court or a High Court under its general jurisdiction) to enforce it, which
tends to be a slower and less powerful legal path.
The change also made it significantly easier for Parliament and state legislatures to regulate,
restrict, or acquire private property through ordinary legislation, without facing the higher
constitutional bar that would apply to restricting a Fundamental Right. This shift was made
deliberately, largely to remove constitutional obstacles to land-reform and redistribution
legislation, which had repeatedly been challenged and struck down when property was still a …
Unlock everything free for 14 days
- Full step-by-step solutions
- Concept-first explanations
- Methods, shortcuts & mistakes
- PYQ mapping + timed mock tests
Full access for 14 days. No credit card required.