Right to property can't be held hostage to doctrinaire socialism

The citizens of this country deserve something more durable and permanent than personal effects like jewellery, shares and bank deposits

- S MURLIDHARAN

On November 4, the Supreme Court has provided, via a 7:2 majority judgment, a seemingly Goldilocks solution to the vexing issue of the ambiguous right to property in Property Owners Association vs State of Maharashtra, expressly distancing itself from Justice VR Krishna Iyer's dogmatic socialistic view on the subject. The bottom line of which was the directive principles of state policy enshrined in Article 39(b) of the Constitution prevails over the fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 14 and 19 insofar as property rights are concerned. His tacit elevation of non-enforceable directive principles to the enforceable status of fundamental rights in State of Karnataka vs Ranganatha Reddy (SC) (1977) was arguably due to the Emergency-era 1971 amendment to the Constitution brought about by the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, robbing the right to property of its fundamental right status. That amendment was through the insertion of new section Article 31C, inserted through the Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act, 1971, which states that no law implementing Directive principles shall be void for inconsistency with rights under Articles 14 and 19. Parliament added Article 31C to override the SC verdict in R.C. Cooper, where the Court had struck down bank nationalization as violative of Article 14.