This 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.
How this question is built
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?
Origin: Web / Current Affairs
Fairness: CA heavy
Web-answerable
"Article 19 guaranteed to all citizens the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property."
Why this source?
- 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.
"The right to property which was listed as Article 31 was omitted by the Forty-fourth constitutional Amendment, 1978. However, the right to property is still a constitutional right – prohibiting state governments from compulsorily acquiring citizens’"
Why this source?
- 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.
"Some fundamental rights apply for persons of any nationality whereas others are available only to the citizens of India."
Why this source?
- 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.
Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 8: Fundamental Rights > PRESENT POSITION OF RIGHT TO PROPERTY > p. 102
Strength: 5/5
“Originally, the right to property was one of the seven fundamental rights under Part m of the Constitution. It was dealt with by Article 19(1) (I) and Article 31. Article 19(1)(1) guaranteed to every citizen the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property. Article 31 , on the other hand, guaranteed to every person, whether citizen or non-citizen, the right against deprivation of his/her property. It provided that no person shall be deprived of his/her property except by authority of law. Since the commencement of the Constitution, the Fundamental Right to Property has been the most controversial. It has caused confrontations between the Supreme Court and the Parliament.”
Why relevant
Explains original split: Article 19(1)(f) (a citizens' right) vs Article 31 (a right 'to every person, whether citizen or non-citizen').
How to extend
A student could use this pattern (citizen-only under Article 19; 'person' under Article 31) to ask whether the post‑amendment legal right keeps the 'person' scope or adopts a citizen-only scope by checking Article 300‑A's wording.
Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity. 7th ed., McGraw Hill. > Chapter 4: Salient Features of the Constitution > III I Fundamental Rights > p. 30
Strength: 5/5
“Part III of the Indian Constitution guarantees six fundamental rights to all the citizens: | (a) Right to Equality Articles 14-18| | (b) Right to Freedom Articles 19-22| | (c) Right against Exploitation Articles 23-24| | (d) Right to Freedom of Religion Articles 25-28| | (e) Cultural and Educational Rights Articles 29-30| | (f) Right to Constitutional Remedy Article 32| Originally, the Constitution provided for seven Fundamental Rights. However, the Right to Property (Article 31) was deleted from the list of Fundamental Rights by the 44th Amendment Act of 1978. It is made a legal right under Article 300-A in Part XII of the constitution.”
Why relevant
States that the Right to Property was removed as a Fundamental Right by the 44th Amendment and 'is made a legal right under Article 300‑A'.
How to extend
One could compare the scope language of Article 300‑A with former Article 31 or with other rights retained as 'person' vs 'citizen' to infer applicability.
Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 8: Fundamental Rights > III Protection of Six Rights > p. 85
Strength: 4/5
“Article 19 guarantees to all citizens the six rights. These are: • (i) Right to freedom of speech and expression. • (ii) Right to assemble peaceably and without arms. • (iii) Right to form associations or unions or co-operative societies. • (iv) Right to move freely throughout the territory of India. • (v) Right to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India. • (vi) Right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. Originaly, Article 19 contained seven rights. But, the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property was deleted by the 44th Amendment Act of J 978.”
Why relevant
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).
How to extend
Use the rule that Article 19 rights are explicitly citizen‑limited to question whether any successor legal right has preserved or removed that citizen‑limit.
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
Strength: 4/5
“Thus- (a) Some of the fundamental rights are granted only to citizens-(i) Protection from discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth [Article 15]; (ii) Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment [Article 16]; (iii) Freedoms of speech, assembly, association, movement, residence and profession [Article 19]; (iv) Cultural and educational rights of minorities [Article 30]. (b) Some of the fundamental rights, on the other hand, are available to any person on the soil of India-citizen or foreigner-(i) Equality before the law and equal protection of the Laws [Article 14]; (ii) Protection in respect of conviction against ex post facto laws, double punishment and self-incrimination [Article 20]; (iii) Protection of life and personal liberty against action without authority of law [Article 21]; (iv) Right against exploitation [Article 23]; (v) Freedom of religion [Artic III.”
Why relevant
Gives a general rule distinguishing fundamental rights that are citizen‑only and those available to any 'person' on Indian soil.
How to extend
Apply this distinction as a template: check whether the legal right under Article 300‑A is framed like the 'person' category or the 'citizen' category.
Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 8: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES > own and to dispose it freely, limited only by: (a) reasonable I. The Constitution restrictions to serve the exigencies of public welfare; and (b) of 1949. any other reasonable restrictions that may be imposed by > p. 150
Strength: 3/5
“Article 39, further, declares, as a fundamental right, that: The citizens'... homes are inviolable. The net result of the foregoing provisions seems to be that the state cannot take away an individual's dwelling house and similar personal property, even by legislation, so that no question of compensation for compulsory acquisition may arise. In view of the drastic effects of the abolition of Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(2), some jurists in India have put forth their belief that the Supreme Court would come to the rescue of the expropriated owners by holding that notwithstanding the omission of such constitutionally guaranteed right to compensation, the”
Why relevant
Discusses consequences of removing Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(2) and juristic views about protection of property after those deletions.
How to extend
A student could use this historical pattern to investigate whether post‑44th Amendment protections (Article 300‑A) were intended to keep property protection broad (persons) or narrower (citizens).
Statement 2
Is the Right to Property in India a legal right available to any person, including non-citizens?
Origin: Direct from books
Fairness: Straightforward
Book-answerable
From standard books
Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 8: Fundamental Rights > RIGHTS OUTSIDE PART III > p. 106
Presence: 5/5
“t RIGHTS OUTSIDE PART III Besides the Fundamental Rights included in Part III, there are certain other rights contained in other parts of the Constitution. These rights are known as constitutional rights or legal rights or non-fundamental rights. They are: • 1. No tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law (Article 265 in Part XIX). • 2. No person shall be deprived of his/ her property save by authority of law (Article 300-A in Part XII). • 3. 'Tade, commerce and intercourse throughout the territory of India shall be free (Article 301 in Part XIII).• 4.”
Why this source?
- 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.
Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity. 7th ed., McGraw Hill. > Chapter 4: Salient Features of the Constitution > III I Fundamental Rights > p. 30
Presence: 5/5
“Part III of the Indian Constitution guarantees six fundamental rights to all the citizens: | (a) Right to Equality Articles 14-18| | (b) Right to Freedom Articles 19-22| | (c) Right against Exploitation Articles 23-24| | (d) Right to Freedom of Religion Articles 25-28| | (e) Cultural and Educational Rights Articles 29-30| | (f) Right to Constitutional Remedy Article 32| Originally, the Constitution provided for seven Fundamental Rights. However, the Right to Property (Article 31) was deleted from the list of Fundamental Rights by the 44th Amendment Act of 1978. It is made a legal right under Article 300-A in Part XII of the constitution.”
Why this source?
- 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.
Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 8: Fundamental Rights > PRESENT POSITION OF RIGHT TO PROPERTY > p. 102
Presence: 4/5
“Originally, the right to property was one of the seven fundamental rights under Part m of the Constitution. It was dealt with by Article 19(1) (I) and Article 31. Article 19(1)(1) guaranteed to every citizen the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property. Article 31 , on the other hand, guaranteed to every person, whether citizen or non-citizen, the right against deprivation of his/her property. It provided that no person shall be deprived of his/her property except by authority of law. Since the commencement of the Constitution, the Fundamental Right to Property has been the most controversial. It has caused confrontations between the Supreme Court and the Parliament.”
Why this source?
- 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.
Statement 3
Is the Right to Property in India a Fundamental Right available only to citizens?
Origin: Direct from books
Fairness: Straightforward
Book-answerable
From standard books
Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 8: Fundamental Rights > PRESENT POSITION OF RIGHT TO PROPERTY > p. 102
Presence: 5/5
“Originally, the right to property was one of the seven fundamental rights under Part m of the Constitution. It was dealt with by Article 19(1) (I) and Article 31. Article 19(1)(1) guaranteed to every citizen the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property. Article 31 , on the other hand, guaranteed to every person, whether citizen or non-citizen, the right against deprivation of his/her property. It provided that no person shall be deprived of his/her property except by authority of law. Since the commencement of the Constitution, the Fundamental Right to Property has been the most controversial. It has caused confrontations between the Supreme Court and the Parliament.”
Why this source?
- 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.
Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 4: Salient Features of the Constitution > III I Fundamental Rights > p. 30
Presence: 5/5
“Part III of the Indian Constitution guarantees six fundamental rights to all the citizens: • (a) Right to Equality Articles 14-18) • (b) Right to Freedom (Articles 19-22) • (c) Right against Exploitation (Articles 23-24) • (d) Right to Freedom of Religion (Articles 25-28) • (e) Cultural and Educational Rights (Articles 29-30) and • (f) Right to Constitutional Remedy (Article 32) Originally, the Constitution provided for seven Fundamental Rights. However, the Right to Property (Article 31) was deleted from the list of Fundamental Rights by the 44th Amendment Act of J978. It is made a legal right under Article 300-A in Part XII of the constitution.”
Why this source?
- 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.
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
Presence: 4/5
“Thus- (a) Some of the fundamental rights are granted only to citizens-(i) Protection from discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth [Article 15]; (ii) Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment [Article 16]; (iii) Freedoms of speech, assembly, association, movement, residence and profession [Article 19]; (iv) Cultural and educational rights of minorities [Article 30]. (b) Some of the fundamental rights, on the other hand, are available to any person on the soil of India-citizen or foreigner-(i) Equality before the law and equal protection of the Laws [Article 14]; (ii) Protection in respect of conviction against ex post facto laws, double punishment and self-incrimination [Article 20]; (iii) Protection of life and personal liberty against action without authority of law [Article 21]; (iv) Right against exploitation [Article 23]; (v) Freedom of religion [Artic III.”
Why this source?
- 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.
Statement 4
Is the Right to Property in India neither a Fundamental Right nor a legal right?
Origin: Web / Current Affairs
Fairness: CA heavy
Web-answerable
"The Forty-Fourth Amendment of 1978 removed the right to property from the list of fundamental"
Why this source?
- 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 — supporting the 'not a Fundamental Right' part of the claim.
"The right to property which was listed as Article 31 was omitted by the Forty-fourth constitutional Amendment, 1978. However, the right to property is still a constitutional right – prohibiting state governments from compulsorily acquiring citizens’"
Why this source?
- 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.
"Moreover, the right to property has been made a constitutional right."
Why this source?
- 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.
Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 4: Salient Features of the Constitution > III I Fundamental Rights > p. 30
Strength: 5/5
“Part III of the Indian Constitution guarantees six fundamental rights to all the citizens: • (a) Right to Equality Articles 14-18) • (b) Right to Freedom (Articles 19-22) • (c) Right against Exploitation (Articles 23-24) • (d) Right to Freedom of Religion (Articles 25-28) • (e) Cultural and Educational Rights (Articles 29-30) and • (f) Right to Constitutional Remedy (Article 32) Originally, the Constitution provided for seven Fundamental Rights. However, the Right to Property (Article 31) was deleted from the list of Fundamental Rights by the 44th Amendment Act of J978. It is made a legal right under Article 300-A in Part XII of the constitution.”
Why relevant
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.
How to extend
A student could check the text of the 44th Amendment and Article 300-A in the Constitution to confirm the change of status.
Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 8: Fundamental Rights > PRESENT POSITION OF RIGHT TO PROPERTY > p. 102
Strength: 5/5
“It is not a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The right to property as a legal right (as distinct from the Fundamental Rights) has the following implications: • (a) It can be regulated, i.e., curtailed, abridged or modified without constitutional amendment by a normal law of the Parliament.• (b) It protects private property against executive action but not against legislative action.• (c) In case of violation, the aggrieved person cannot directly move the Supreme Court under Article 32 (right to constitutional remedies including writs) for its enforcement. He/ she can move the High Court under Article 226.”
Why relevant
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.
How to extend
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.
Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 8: Fundamental Rights > RIGHTS OUTSIDE PART III > p. 106
Strength: 5/5
“t RIGHTS OUTSIDE PART III Besides the Fundamental Rights included in Part III, there are certain other rights contained in other parts of the Constitution. These rights are known as constitutional rights or legal rights or non-fundamental rights. They are: • 1. No tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law (Article 265 in Part XIX). • 2. No person shall be deprived of his/ her property save by authority of law (Article 300-A in Part XII). • 3. 'Tade, commerce and intercourse throughout the territory of India shall be free (Article 301 in Part XIII).• 4.”
Why relevant
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., non‑fundamental/constitutional/legal rights).
How to extend
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.
Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 8: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES > p. 93
Strength: 4/5
“The death blow to one of the Fundamental Rights came from the Janata Government. . . The net result of the foregoing amendments inflicted upon the right to property are:- . (i) The right not to be deprived of one's property, save by authority of law, is no longer a "fundamental right". Hence, if anybody's property is taken away by executive fiat without the authority of law or in contravention of a law, the aggrieved individual shall have no right to move the Supreme Court under Article 32. (ii) If a Legislature makes a law depriving a person of his property, he cannot challenge the reasonableness of the restrictions imposed by such law, invoking Article 19( 1 )(f), because that provision has ceased to exist.”
Why relevant
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.
How to extend
Cross-check with the 44th Amendment provisions and landmark cases to corroborate loss of Article 32 remedy for property claims.
Indian Constitution at Work, Political Science Class XI (NCERT 2025 ed.) > Chapter 2: RIGHTS IN THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION > Right to Property > p. 46
Strength: 4/5
“In 1978, the 44th amendment to the Constitution removed the right to property from the list of Fundamental Rights and converted it into a simple legal right under article 300 A. What difference, do you think, this change of status makes to the right to property?”
Why relevant
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.
How to extend
A student could consult classically authoritative sources (Constitution text/legislative history) to confirm the conversion and its practical effects.
Pattern takeaway:
UPSC consistently exploits the 'Scope of Applicability' in Polity. They will take a generic statement and restrict it with 'only citizens' or expand it to 'any person'. Always verify the beneficiary of the right in the bare text.
How you should have studied
- [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.
Concept hooks from this question
👉 Citizen vs Person distinction in constitutional rights
💡 The insight
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.
📚 Reading List :
- 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
🔗 Anchor: "Is the Right to Property in India a legal right available only to citizens?"
👉 44th Amendment and Article 300‑A: Fundamental Right converted to legal right
💡 The insight
The Right to Property ceased to be a Fundamental Right in 1978 and was made a legal right under Article 300‑A.
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.
📚 Reading List :
- 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
🔗 Anchor: "Is the Right to Property in India a legal right available only to citizens?"
👉 Two facets of property protection: acquisition/holding/disposal vs protection against deprivation
💡 The insight
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).
📚 Reading List :
- 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
🔗 Anchor: "Is the Right to Property in India a legal right available only to citizens?"
👉 Article 300-A: Right against deprivation of property
💡 The insight
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.
📚 Reading List :
- 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
🔗 Anchor: "Is the Right to Property in India a legal right available to any person, includi..."
👉 Citizen vs Person distinction in Fundamental Rights
💡 The insight
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.
📚 Reading List :
- 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
🔗 Anchor: "Is the Right to Property in India a legal right available to any person, includi..."
👉 44th Amendment: removal of Right to Property as a Fundamental Right
💡 The insight
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.
📚 Reading List :
- 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
🔗 Anchor: "Is the Right to Property in India a legal right available to any person, includi..."
👉 Citizen vs Person distinction in Fundamental Rights
💡 The insight
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 14–21, migration, and immigration-related rights.
📚 Reading List :
- 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
🔗 Anchor: "Is the Right to Property in India a Fundamental Right available only to citizens..."
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.