What difference, do you think, this change of status makes to the right to property?
The change of status from a Fundamental Right to a legal right under Article 300A makes a significant difference to the right to property. Originally, as a Fundamental Right, it enjoyed greater constitutional protection and was considered sacred. However, the Supreme Court ruled in 1973 that the right to property was not part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
This change empowers Parliament to abridge or modify this right more easily. The government can now take away property for public welfare purposes without violating Fundamental Rights. This shift facilitates the implementation of Directive Principles of State Policy, such as abolishing the zamindari system, by prioritizing societal needs over individual property rights.
Explanation
The textbook explains that the right to property was originally a Fundamental Right but was removed from this list by the 44th Amendment in 1978. The key difference this change makes is that as a legal right under Article 300A, it no longer enjoys the same level of protection as Fundamental Rights. The Supreme Court clarified that property rights are not part of the basic structure, allowing Parliament greater flexibility to amend or limit this right. This change resolved the conflict between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, enabling the government to pursue welfare measures like land reforms without constitutional constraints.
Solution Steps
Step 1: Identify the original status of right to property as a Fundamental Right
Step 2: Explain the 44th Amendment change to a legal right under Article 300A
Step 3: Discuss the implications - Parliament's power to abridge and government's ability to implement Directive Principles