Editing Content :: Admin Scraper

Chapter

Content type

Position

Value

Indian Constitution at Work Principles exhort the government to do certain things. Fundamental Rights mainly protect the rights of individuals while directive principles ensure the well-being of the entire society. However, at times, when government intends to implement Directive Principles of State Policy, it can come in conflict with the Fundamental Rights of the citizen. This problem arose when the government sought to pass laws to abolish zamindari system. These measures were opposed on the ground that they violated right to property. However, keeping in mind the societal needs that are greater than the individual interests, the government amended the Constitution to give effect to the Directive Principles of State Policy. This led to a long legal battle. The executive and the judiciary took different positions. The government claimed that rights can be abridged for giving effect to Directive Principles. This argument assumed that rights were a hindrance to welfare of the people. On the other hand, the court held the view that Fundamental Rights were so important and sacred that they cannot be limited even for purposes of implementing Directive Principles. Right to Property Behind the controversy about the relationship between rights and directive principles, there was one important reason: in the Constitution, originally, there was a fundamental right to ‘acquire, possess and maintain’ property. But the Constitution made it clear that property could be taken away by the government for public welfare. Since 1950, government made many laws that limited this right to property. This right was at the centre of the long debate over the relationship between rights and directive principles. Finally, in 1973, the Supreme Court gave a decision that the right to property was not part of the basic structure of the Constitution and therefore, parliament had power to abridge this right by an amendment. In 1978, the 44 amendment to the Constitution removed the right to property from the list of Fundamental Rights and converted it into a simple 46 legal right under article 300 A. What difference, do you think, this change of status makes to the right to property? Reprint 2026-27