Question map
What is the position of the Right to Property in India?
Explanation
The correct answer is Option 2.
Originally, the Right to Property was a Fundamental Right under Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31. However, the 44th Amendment Act, 1978, abolished it as a Fundamental Right and reinserted it as Article 300A in Part XII of the Constitution.
- Legal Right: Article 300A states that "no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law." This makes it a constitutional/legal right, not a Fundamental Right.
- Available to Any Person: The word used in Article 300A is "person," which includes both citizens and non-citizens (including legal entities/corporations). This distinguishes it from certain Fundamental Rights (like Article 19) which are exclusive to citizens.
Option 1 is incorrect because the right extends beyond citizens. Option 3 is false as it is no longer a Fundamental Right. Option 4 is incorrect as it remains a valid constitutional right.
PROVENANCE & STUDY PATTERN
Guest previewThis is a textbook 'Sitter' derived directly from the standard 'Rights outside Part III' section in Laxmikanth. It tests two specific pivots: the status change (Fundamental -> Legal via 44th Amd) and the beneficiary scope ('Citizen' vs 'Person'). If you missed this, you aren't reading the *subject* of the Constitutional Articles carefully.
This question can be broken into the following sub-statements. Tap a statement sentence to jump into its detailed analysis.
- Statement 1: Is the Right to Property in India a legal right available only to citizens?
- Statement 2: Is the Right to Property in India a legal right available to any person, including non-citizens?
- Statement 3: Is the Right to Property in India a Fundamental Right available only to citizens?
- Statement 4: Is the Right to Property in India neither a Fundamental Right nor a legal right?
- Directly states the constitutional provision that tied property rights under Article 19 to citizens.
- Shows Article 19 specifically 'guaranteed to all citizens the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property', implying that provision was limited to citizens.
- Notes the removal of Article 31 as a fundamental right but describes the current constitutional protection in terms of 'citizens'.
- Implicates that the modern constitutional protection against compulsory acquisition is framed with reference to citizens' property.
- States the general principle that some fundamental rights are available only to citizens while others apply to all persons.
- Provides context that property-related rights under certain Articles were among rights tied specifically to citizenship.
Explains original split: Article 19(1)(f) (a citizens' right) vs Article 31 (a right 'to every person, whether citizen or non-citizen').
A student could use this pattern (citizen-only under Article 19; 'person' under Article 31) to ask whether the postβamendment legal right keeps the 'person' scope or adopts a citizen-only scope by checking Article 300βA's wording.
States that the Right to Property was removed as a Fundamental Right by the 44th Amendment and 'is made a legal right under Article 300βA'.
One could compare the scope language of Article 300βA with former Article 31 or with other rights retained as 'person' vs 'citizen' to infer applicability.
Notes that Article 19 originally included the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property as a right guaranteed to 'all citizens' (Article 19 guarantees to all citizens the six rights).
Use the rule that Article 19 rights are explicitly citizenβlimited to question whether any successor legal right has preserved or removed that citizenβlimit.
Gives a general rule distinguishing fundamental rights that are citizenβonly and those available to any 'person' on Indian soil.
Apply this distinction as a template: check whether the legal right under Article 300βA is framed like the 'person' category or the 'citizen' category.
Discusses consequences of removing Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(2) and juristic views about protection of property after those deletions.
A student could use this historical pattern to investigate whether postβ44th Amendment protections (Article 300βA) were intended to keep property protection broad (persons) or narrower (citizens).
- Uses the phrasing 'No person shall be deprived of his/ her property' and cites Article 300-A, framing the right as a legal (non-fundamental) protection.
- The term 'person' in the constitutional provision indicates applicability beyond the category of 'citizen'.
- Directly identifies the current constitutional source (Article 300-A) for the right against deprivation of property.
- Explicitly states that the Right to Property was removed from Part III as a Fundamental Right and 'is made a legal right under Article 300-A'.
- Confirms the present legal status and location of the right within the Constitution.
- Explains that the earlier Article 31 guaranteed the right against deprivation to 'every person, whether citizen or non-citizen', showing that the 'person' formulation has been used to include non-citizens.
- Provides historical context linking the concept of 'person' to non-citizen protection against deprivation of property.
This statement analysis shows book citations, web sources and indirect clues. The first statement (S1) is open for preview.
Login with Google to unlock all statements. Unlock full statement-level provenance with ExamRobot Pro.
- Explicitly says right to property was originally one of the seven Fundamental Rights under Part III.
- Distinguishes two aspects: Article 19(1)(f) guaranteed the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property to every citizen.
- States Article 31 guaranteed the right against deprivation to every person, whether citizen or non-citizen.
- Records that the Right to Property (Article 31) was deleted from Part III by the 44th Amendment (1978).
- Clarifies that after deletion the right became a legal/constitutional right under Article 300-A rather than a Fundamental Right.
- Lists freedoms under Article 19 as rights granted only to citizens, placing property-related freedom in the citizen-only category.
- Contrasts rights available only to citizens with those available to any person on Indian soil, supporting the citizen vs person distinction.
This statement analysis shows book citations, web sources and indirect clues. The first statement (S1) is open for preview.
Login with Google to unlock all statements. Unlock full statement-level provenance with ExamRobot Pro.
- Directly states the constitutional change that removed the right to property from the list of fundamental rights.
- Identifies the Forty-fourth Amendment (1978) as the instrument that removed it as a fundamental right β supporting the 'not a Fundamental Right' part of the claim.
- Confirms Article 31 (right to property) was omitted by the Forty-fourth Amendment, corroborating that it is no longer a fundamental right.
- Also states the right to property "is still a constitutional right", which contradicts the claim that it is not a legal right.
- Notes historical listing of right to property among fundamental rights but indicates change in status.
- States explicitly that the right to property "has been made a constitutional right," contradicting the part of the claim that it is not a legal/constitutional right.
States that the Right to Property (Article 31) was deleted from Part III by the 44th Amendment (1978) and was made a legal right under Article 300-A.
A student could check the text of the 44th Amendment and Article 300-A in the Constitution to confirm the change of status.
Explains implications of the right as a legal right: it can be regulated by ordinary law, protects against executive but not legislative action, and cannot be enforced directly under Article 32.
Use the listed implications to test whether a 'legal right' designation fits the Right to Property by comparing enforcement routes (Article 32 vs Article 226) in constitutional text/case law.
Lists 'No person shall be deprived of his/her property save by authority of law' as Article 300-A in Part XII under rights outside Part III (i.e., nonβfundamental/constitutional/legal rights).
Verify Article 300-A's wording and placement in the Constitution to see if it is outside Part III and therefore not a Fundamental Right.
Explicitly states consequence of amendments: the right not to be deprived of property is no longer a fundamental right and Article 32 remedy is no longer available.
Cross-check with the 44th Amendment provisions and landmark cases to corroborate loss of Article 32 remedy for property claims.
NCERT notes that the 44th Amendment removed Right to Property from Fundamental Rights and converted it into a simple legal right under Article 300-A.
A student could consult classically authoritative sources (Constitution text/legislative history) to confirm the conversion and its practical effects.
This statement analysis shows book citations, web sources and indirect clues. The first statement (S1) is open for preview.
Login with Google to unlock all statements. Unlock full statement-level provenance with ExamRobot Pro.
- [THE VERDICT]: Sitter. Direct hit from Laxmikanth (Chapter: Fundamental Rights / Rights Outside Part III) and NCERT Class XI.
- [THE CONCEPTUAL TRIGGER]: The 'Citizen vs. Person' matrix in the Constitution. Knowing which rights are exclusive to citizens (Art 15, 16, 19, 29, 30) vs. those available to all persons.
- [THE HORIZONTAL EXPANSION]: Memorize the 'Citizen Only' Club: Articles 15, 16, 19, 29, 30. All others (14, 20, 21, 25, etc.) apply to 'Persons'. Note that 'Person' includes corporations and foreigners. Check Art 265 (No tax without law) and Art 301 (Freedom of trade) as other non-fundamental constitutional rights.
- [THE STRATEGIC METACOGNITION]: When reading Constitutional articles, never skip the subject. Does the sentence start with 'No citizen shall...' or 'No person shall...'? This single word is a favorite trap for the examiner to invert.
This tab shows concrete study steps: what to underline in books, how to map current affairs, and how to prepare for similar questions.
Login with Google to unlock study guidance. Available with ExamRobot Pro.
Some constitutional provisions grant rights only to citizens while others protect any person in India.
High-yield for UPSC: many questions test which rights are confined to citizens (e.g., Article 19) versus those available to any person (e.g., certain protections). Mastering this distinction helps answer questions on Fundamental Rights, eligibility, and the scope of protections under the Constitution and prevents conflating citizen-only and person-rights.
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 8: Fundamental Rights > PRESENT POSITION OF RIGHT TO PROPERTY > p. 102
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 8: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES > CHAP. 8 Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Duties 97 > p. 98
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 7: CITIZENSHIP > CITIZENSHIP > p. 83
The Right to Property ceased to be a Fundamental Right in 1978 and was made a legal right under Article 300βA.
High-yield: understanding constitutional amendments that change the status of rights is frequently tested in prelims and mains (legal evolution, effect on remedies like Article 32). It connects to topics on amendments, fundamental vs statutory/legal rights, and judicial review implications.
- Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity. 7th ed., McGraw Hill. > Chapter 4: Salient Features of the Constitution > III I Fundamental Rights > p. 30
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 4: Salient Features of the Constitution > III I Fundamental Rights > p. 30
- Indian Economy, Nitin Singhania .(ed 2nd 2021-22) > Chapter 10: Land Reforms in India > 10.6 Indian Economy > p. 340
Historically the Constitution distinguished the right to acquire/hold/dispose (citizen-focused) from the right against deprivation (protected for every person).
Useful for precision in answers: many questions require naming specific provisions or tracing how different aspects of a right are treated. This concept links constitutional text analysis with case-law and amendment impacts (helps in legal and polity mains answers).
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 8: Fundamental Rights > PRESENT POSITION OF RIGHT TO PROPERTY > p. 102
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 8: Fundamental Rights > III Protection of Six Rights > p. 85
Article 300-A makes the right against deprivation of property a legal right applicable to any person.
High-yield constitutional concept: distinguishes non-fundamental legal rights from fundamental rights; crucial for questions on property law, state acquisition, and the limits of judicial remedy. Helps answer items on current constitutional provisions and their scope.
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 8: Fundamental Rights > RIGHTS OUTSIDE PART III > p. 106
- Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity. 7th ed., McGraw Hill. > Chapter 4: Salient Features of the Constitution > III I Fundamental Rights > p. 30
The Constitution differentiates rights reserved for citizens from rights available to any person, affecting who can claim protections.
Essential for questions about eligibility of rights, scope of Articles (e.g., 14, 19, 21), and issues involving foreigners or stateless persons. Enables precise answers on which rights are citizen-only and which extend to all persons.
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 8: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES > CHAP. 8 Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Duties 97 > p. 98
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 8: Fundamental Rights > PRESENT POSITION OF RIGHT TO PROPERTY > p. 102
The 44th Amendment removed the Right to Property from Part III and reclassified it as a legal right under Article 300-A.
Important for amendment-history questions and for understanding shifts in constitutional safeguards; links to topics on parliamentary power, land acquisition, and evolution of fundamental rights jurisprudence.
- Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity. 7th ed., McGraw Hill. > Chapter 4: Salient Features of the Constitution > III I Fundamental Rights > p. 30
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 8: Fundamental Rights > PRESENT POSITION OF RIGHT TO PROPERTY > p. 102
Some fundamental-right guarantees apply only to citizens while others apply to any person on Indian soil; property-related protections exemplify this split.
High-yield for UPSC: many questions test which Articles confer rights exclusively on citizens versus on all persons. Mastering this helps answer MCQs and analytical questions on Articles 14β21, migration, and immigration-related rights.
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 8: Fundamental Rights > PRESENT POSITION OF RIGHT TO PROPERTY > p. 102
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 8: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES > CHAP. 8 Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Duties 97 > p. 98
Discover the small, exam-centric ideas hidden in this question and where they appear in your books and notes.
Login with Google to unlock micro-concepts. Unlock micro-concepts with ExamRobot Pro.
Since they asked about the *nature* of the right, the next logical question is about the *remedy*. Under Article 300-A, you cannot move the Supreme Court directly under Article 32 (Writ) if your property is taken; you must go to the High Court under Article 226. Also, 300-A protects against executive action without law, but offers weaker protection against legislative action compared to Fundamental Rights.
Apply 'Economic Common Sense'. If property rights were available *only* to citizens, how would foreign companies (MNCs) or embassies own land or offices in India? A modern economy requires non-citizens (legal persons) to hold property. Thus, options restricting it to 'citizens only' are economically illogical.
Link this to GS-3 (Infrastructure & Land Acquisition). The conversion of Property from a Fundamental Right to a Legal Right was the constitutional prerequisite for Land Reforms and modern infrastructure projects (Highways/Dams), leading to the LARR Act, 2013, which balances this legal right with fair compensation.
Access hidden traps, elimination shortcuts, and Mains connections that give you an edge on every question.
Login with Google to unlock The Vault. Unlock the Mentor's Vault with ExamRobot Pro.