land law

INTRODUCTION: For UPSC, Land Revenue Systems in British India is alays a hot to!i" #or Prelims and $ains% &nd as !er the ne sylla'us (land re#orms in India) is s!e"i#i"ally mentioned #or *S $ains, and the relevan"e +ust ot multi!lied% No let)s have a -ui". loo. at the di##erent methods o# land revenue "olle"tion systems hi"h e/isted in India%Ta/ #rom the land as a ma+or sour"e o# revenue #or the .ins and em!erors #rom an"ient times% But the onershi!  !attern o# land had itnessed "hanes over "enturies % Durin 0inshi!, land as divided into 1airs, 1airs ere allotted to 1airdars, these 1airdars s!lit the land they ot and allo"ated to su'2ordinate 3amindars% 3amindars made !easants "ultivate the land, in2return "olle"ted !art o# their revenue as ta/%Three ma+or systems o# land revenue "olle"tion e/isted in India% They ere 4 3aminidari, Ryotari and $ahalari%

Object of the research:

The main o'+e"tive o# the study is to #ind hether Ninth s"hedule o# the "onstitution should  'e 'rouht under the +udi"ial revie i# t violates the #undamental rihts%

Hypothesis:

On"e a la is ena"ted and in"luded in the Ninth S"hedule, it ets !rote"tion under &rti"le 562 B and is not su'+e"t to +udi"ial s"rutiny%

Limitation:

The study made is limited only to the ninth s"hedule o# the "onstitution o# India%

1

C7&PT8R I Zamindari System

The $uhal 8m!eror ranted the Diani o# Benal and Orissa to the 8ast Indian Com!any% The Diani introdu"ed the 3amindari System in hi"h #armers need to !ay a #i/ed sum in "ash or .ind to the 3amindars% The rate is at 695rd o# the !rodu"e and as "olle"ted 'y the ta/ "olle"tors o# the British *overnment% The Distri"t Colle"tor #un"tioned as a ta/ "olle"tor% The 3amindars used to !ay the *overnment, 96;th o# the "olle"tion% 3amindar system "ontinued as a hereditary riht% British *overnment as ha!!y ith ta/ "olle"tions and used to im!ose a #ine or even im!risonment i# 3amindars #ailed% This made the 3amindars to 'e loyal servants o# the British% Soon they 'e"ame the "olle"tors o# ta/es im!osed 'y the !rovin"ial *overnment and later had to loo. at the ;;6% &#ter 3amindari a'olition the system o# dire"t "olle"tion 'y overnment #rom 'humidhars, sirdars and assamis as introdu"ed throuh the aen"y o# the "olle"tion amins hose or. is su!ervised 'y naya'2tahsildars, tahsildars and su' divisional o##i"ers% The ultimate res!onsi'ility #or "olle"tion o# main dues is that o# the "olle"tor% On the eve o# the a'olition o# amindari in the state in 6A, the total demand o# land revenue as Rs 5H,;G,@A>% Commen"in a#ter 6A, #or some !eriod the overnment had also a!!ointed a distri"t "olle"tion o##i"er #or doin this or. e/"lusively 'ut later on he as ithdran %e%#% 6H5% But due to the drouhts and un#avoura'le "onditions #or ari"ultureK the revenue im!osition on all the ari"ultural lands are sus!ended till #urther noti#i"ations%

The !ra"ti"e o# 3amindari is totally a'olished #rom Ra+asthan 'ut there is reat s"o!e #or  im!rovement o# the e/istin land manaement te"hni-ues in the Ra+asthan% Interation o#  "adastral surveys o# various !rovin"es ould 'e a el"ome ste!, 'ut it re-uires "riti"al "onsideration o# the "artora!hi", leal and e"onomi" as!e"ts o# the !ro'lem% Pre!aration and storae o# land re"ords and data should 'e in diital #orm, and it is im!erative that the *ovt% "hal. out a de#inite !oli"y and !roram in this dire"tion

8

 C7&PT8R III ()*$R %O)ST'T(T'O) :

The Indian Constitution does not re"onie !ro!erty riht as a #undamental riht% In the year  6==, the @@th amendment eliminated the riht to ac+"ire, hold and dispose of property  as a #undamental riht% 7oever, in another !art o# the Constitution, &rti"le 5;; E& as inserted to a##irm that no !erson shall 'e de!rived o# his !ro!erty save 'y authority o# la% The result is that the riht to !ro!erty as a #undamental riht is no su'stituted as a statutory riht% The amendment e/!anded the !oer o# the state to a!!ro!riate !ro!erty #or so"ial el#are !ur!oses% In other ords, the amendment 'estoed u!on the Indian so"ialist state a li"en"e to indule in hat Fredri" Bastiat termed leal !lunder% This is one o# the "lassi" e/am!les hen the la has 'een !erverted in order to ma.e !lunder loo. +ust and sa"red to many "ons"ien"es% The Su!reme Courts a!!roa"h to the riht to !ro!erty "an 'e divided into to !hases:2 •

T78 TI$8 TILL T78 RI*7T TO PROP8RT ?&S & FUND&$8NT&L RI*7T

•

EPR8 6=G T78 TI$8 &FT8R T78 CONM8RSION OF RI*7T TO PROP8RT &S & CONSTITUTION&L RI*7T EPOST 6=G

 Pre 1978 the Fundamental Right to Property

The Ninth S"hedule as inserted in the "onstitution 'y the Constitution EFirst &mendment &"t, 6A6 alon ith to ne &rti"les 56 & 56 B so as to ma.e las a"-uirin amindaris un"hallenea'le in the "ourts% Thirteen State &"ts named in this s"hedule ere !ut 'eyond any "hallene in "ourts #or "ontravention o# #undamental rihts% These ste!s ere #elt ne"essary to "arry out land re#orms in a""ordan"e ith the e"onomi" !hiloso!hy o# the state to distri'ute the land amon the land or.ers, a#ter ta.in aay su"h land #rom the land lords%  By the Fourth &mendment &"t, 6AA, &rt 56 relatin to riht to !ro!erty as amended in several res!e"ts% The !ur!ose o# these amendments related to the !oer o# the state o "om!ulsory a"-uisition and re-uisitionin o# !rivate !ro!erty% The amount o# "om!ensation  !aya'le #or this !ur!ose as made un+usti#ia'le to over"ome the e##e"t o# the Su!reme Court

9

 +udement in the de"ision o# State o# ?est Benal v% Bella Baner+ee6% By the "onstitution ESeventeenth &mendment &"t, 6H@, arti"le 56 & as amended ith res!e"t to meanin o#  e/!ression estate and the Ninth S"hedule as amended 'y in"ludin therein "ertain state ena"tments%  Durin this !eriod the Su!reme Court as enerally o# the vie that land re#orms need to 'e u!held even i# they did stri"tly "lash aainst the riht to !ro!erty >, thouh the Su!reme Court as itsel# s.e!ti"al a'out the ay the overnment ent a'out e/er"isin its administrative  !oer in this reard5% The Su!reme Court as insistent that the administrative dis"retion to a!!ro!riate or in#rine !ro!erty rihts should 'e in a""ordan"e ith la and "annot 'e 'y mere #a"t% The "ourt hoever really "lashed ith the so"ialist e/e"utive durin the !eriod o#  nationaliation, hen the "ourt admira'ly stood u! #or the riht to !ro!erty in hoever a limited manner aainst the over rea"hes o# the so"ialist state In this +un"ture the "ourt in this Ban )ationalisation case has "learly !ointed out the #olloin to !oints: a%

The "onstitution uarantees the riht to "om!ensation hi"h is e-uivalent in money to

the value o# the !ro!erty has 'een "om!ulsorily a"-uired% This is the 'asi" uarantee% The la must there#ore !rovide "om!ensation and #or determinin "om!ensation relevant !rin"i!les must 'e s!e"i#ied: i# the !rin"i!les are not relevant the ultimate value determined is not "om!ensation%  '%

The "onstitution uarantees that the e/!ro!riate oner must 'e iven the value o# his

 !ro!erty Ethe reasona'le "om!ensation #or the loss o# the !ro!erty% That reasona'le "om!ensation must not 'e illusionary and not rea"hed 'y the a!!li"ation o# an underta.in as a unit a#ter aardin "om!ensation #or some items hi"h o to ma.e u! the underta.in and omittin im!ortant items amounts to ado!tin an irrelevant !rin"i!le in the determination o#  the value o# the underta.in and does not #urnish "om!ensation to the e/!ro!riated oner%

1AIR 1954 SC 170. 2VasanlalMaganbhaiSanjanwala v. Stat !" #$%ba&' AIR 1961 SC 4 3Ragh(bi) Singh v. C$()t $" *a)+s' AIR 1953 SC 373

10

The out'urst aainst the Riht to Pro!erty as a Fundamental Riht in &rti"les 6 E6 E# and 56 started immediately a#ter the en#or"ement o# the Constitution in 6A;% Land re#orms, amindari a'olition las, dis!utes relatin to "om!ensation, several rounds o# "onstitutional amendments, litiations and ad+udi"ations ultimately "ulminated #irst in the insertion o# the ord so"ialist in the Pream'le 'y the @>nd &mendment in 6== and later in the omission o#  the Riht to Pro!erty as a FR and its rein"arnation as a 'are "onstitutional riht in &rti"le 5;;2& 'y the @@th &mendment in 6=G% Today, the times have "haned radi"ally% India is no more seen throuh the eyes o# only  !oliti"al leaders ith a so"ialist 'ias% It is India Shinin seen throuh the "or!orate lenses o#  #inan"ial iants li.e the Tatas, &m'anis and $ahindras, ith an un#athoma'le eal #or  "a!italism, money and mar.ets% There is another anle% There is a s"ram'le 'y industrialists and develo!ers #or land all over the "ountry #or esta'lishment o# S!e"ial 8"onomi" 3ones% Miolent !rotests 'y !oor ari"ulturists have ta.en !la"e to de#end their meaer land2holdins aainst "om!ulsory a"-uisition 'y the State% In !arti"ular, the riots and .illins in Sinur,  Nandiram et"% in a State Eo# ?est Benal ruled 'y "ommunists has turned the heel #ull "ir"le% So"ialism has 'e"ome a 'ad ord and the Riht to Pro!erty has 'e"ome a ne"essity to assure and assuae the #eelins o# the !oor more than those o# the ri"h% Soon a#ter the a'olition o# the Fundamental Riht to !ro!erty, in Bhim Sinh v% UOI @, The Su!reme Court realised the orth o# the Riht to Pro!erty as a Fundamental Riht% In the a'sen"e o# this Fundamental Riht to !ro!erty, it too. re"ourse to the other Fundamental Riht o# 8-uality hi"h is a'solutely the "on"e!t o# Reasona'leness under &rti"le 6@ #or  invalidatin "ertain as!e"ts o# the ur'an land "eilin leislation% Today, the need is #elt to restore the riht to !ro!erty as a Fundamental Riht #or !rote"tin at least the elementary and  'asi" !ro!rietary rihts o# the !oor Indian "itiens aainst "om!ulsory land a"-uisition% Mery re"ently, the Su!reme Court, hile disa!!rovin the ae2old Do"trine o# &dverse Possession, as aainst the rihts o# the real oner, o'served that the riht to !ro!erty is no "onsidered to  'e not only a "onstitutional riht or statutory riht 'ut also a human riht% Thus, the trend is unmista.a'le% By >;A;, i# the Constitution o# India is to 'e "redited ith a sense o# sensi'ility and #le/i'ility in .ee!in ith the times, the 'ad ord so"ialist inserted in the Pream'le in

4 ,1981- 1 SCC 166

11

6== shall stand omitted and the Riht to Pro!erty shall stand resurre"ted to its oriinal  !osition as a Fundamental Riht% Re"ent &!!roa"h 'y the Su!reme Court In a very re"ent PIL #iled in the Su!reme Court hi"h as still !endin in the 7on'le Court, it as held that the very !ur!ose #or hi"h the riht to !ro!erty releated to a mere statutory riht in the late 6=;s is not no loner relevant% It as arued 'y 7arish Salve, the learned "ounsel #or the !etitioners that: The riht to !ro!erty is made a statutory riht in 6=G to a'olish lare land holdins ith amindars and ri"h and their distri'ution amon landless !easantsK 7avin a"hieved the very !ur!ose 'ehind the leislative a"tion in the late 6=;s, the overnment should no initiate #resh measures to !ut riht to !ro!erty 'a". in the #undamental rihts%

12

 Cha!ter IM

&OST $SHAA)A)*A) BHART' %AS$ : 8arlier, the a!e/ "ourt in its famo"s esha/anandan Bharti case of 0123 had first termed some 'asi" and unaltera'le !arameters and #eatures o# the Indian state and its "onstitution li.e the "ountry= more &"ts to the S"hedule 'y the =Gth &mendment &"t o# 6A the total num'er o# &"ts !rote"ted 'y the S"hedule has risen to >G@% The saa did not end here, the hornets nest had 'een stirred u! already, the state made a "onsistent attem!t 'y the !ro"ess o# amendment to the Constitution to remove the +udi"ial "he". on the e/er"ise o# its !oer in a lare area, and to "lothe itsel# ith ar'itrary !oer in that reard% The history o# the amendments o# &rti"le 56E6 and E> and the addin o# &rti"les 56E& and EB and the Ninth S"hedule reveal the !attern% &rti"le 56 in its #irst to "lauses deals ith the de!rivation o# !ro!erty and a"-uisition o# !ro!erty% The Su!reme Court held in a series o# de"isions vi% State o# ?est Benal v% $rs% Bella Baner+ee A, State o# ?%B v% Su'odh *o!al H, State o# $adras v% Namasivaya$uralidar =, that &rti"le 56, "lauses E6 and E> 5AIR 1954 SC 170 6 ,1954- SCR 587 7,1964- 6 SCR 35

14

 !rovided #or the do"trine o# eminent domain and under "lause E> a !erson must 'e deemed to  'e de!rived o# his !ro!erty i# he as su'stantially dis!ossessed or his riht to use and en+oy the !ro!erty as seriously im!aired 'y the im!uned la% &""ordin to this inter!retation, the to "lauses o# &rti"le 56 dealt only ith a"-uisition o# !ro!erty in the sense e/!lained 'y the "ourt, and that under &rti"le 56E6 the state "ould not ma.e a la de!rivin a !erson o#  his !ro!erty ithout "om!lyin ith the !rovisions o# &rti"le 56E>% It is orth mentionin in this "onte/t that it as the de"ision in the Bella Baner+ees "ase that a"tually indu"ed the overnment to resort to the Fourth &mendment% In this "ase the &!e/ "ourt throuh this landmar. de"ision had insisted #or !ayment o# "om!ensation in every "ase o# "om!ulsory de!rivation o# !ro!erty 'y the state% It as held that "lause E6 and E> o# &rti"le 56 deal ith the same su'+e"t, that is, de!rivation o# !rivate !ro!erty% Further the "ourt held that the ord "om!ensation meant +ust "om!ensation i%e% +ust e-uivalent o# hat the oner had 'een de!rived o#% It is also orthhile to note here that this amendment also amended &rti"le 5;A and em!oered the state to nationalie any trade% The Parliament instead o# a""e!tin the de"ision, 'y its Fourth &mendment &"t, 6AA amended "lause E> and inserted "lause E>2& to &rti"le 56% The e##e"t o# the amendment is that "lause E> deals ith a"-uisition or re-uisition as de#ined in "lause E>2& and "lause E6 "overs de!rivation o# a !erson s !ro!erty 'y the state ʹ

otherise than 'y a"-uisition or re-uisition% This amendment ena'les the state to de!rive a  !erson o# his !ro!erty in an a!!ro!riate "ase 'y a la% This !la"es an ar'itrary !oer in the hands o# the state to "on#is"ate a "itien s !ro!erty% This is a deviation #rom the ideals o# the ʹ

rule o# la envisaed in the Constitution% The amendment to "lause E> o# &rti"le 56 as an attem!t to usur! the +udi"ial !oer% Under amended "lause E>, the !ro!erty o# a "itien "ould  'e a"-uired or re-uisitioned 'y la hi"h !rovides #or "om!ensation #or the !ro!erty so a"-uired or re-uisitioned, and either #i/es the amount o# "om!ensation or s!e"i#ies the  !rin"i!les on hi"h and the manner in hi"h the "om!ensation is to 'e determined% It as #urther !rovided that no su"h la "ould 'e "alled in -uestion in any "ourt on the round that the "om!ensation !rovided 'y that la is not ade-uate% This amendment made the state the #inal ar'iter on the -uestion o# "om!ensation% This amendment "on#erred an ar'itrary !oer  on the state to #i/ at its dis"retion the amount o# "om!ensation #or the !ro!erty a"-uired or  re-uisitioned% The non2+usti#ia'ility o# "om!ensation ena'les the state to #i/ any "om!ensation it "hooses and the result is, 'y a'use o# !oer, "on#is"ation may 'e e##e"ted in the #orm o# a"-uisition%

15

 Then "ame the Seventeenth &mendment &"t, 6H@ 'y hi"h the state e/tended the s"o!e o#  &rti"le 562& and Ninth S"hedule to !rote"t "ertain ararian re#orms ena"ted 'y the 0erala and $adras states% The ord estate in &rti"le 562& no in"luded any+air or inam, mau#, or  any other rant and +anmam riht in state o# 0erala, $adras and also Ryotari lands% It also added "onse-uentially, the se"ond !roviso to "lause E6 to !rote"t a !erson o# 'ein de!rived o# land less than the relevant land "eilin limits held 'y him #or !ersonal "ultivation,@ e/"e!t on !ayment o# #ull mar.et value thereo# 'y ay o# "om!ensation% It also added @@ more &"ts to the Ninth S"hedule% The Su!reme Court 'y various +udments "onsidered the said amendments and restri"ted their s"o!e ithin reasona'le "on#ines% The Su!reme Court in 0o""huni vs% State o# $adras G did not a""e!t the !lea o# the state that &rti"le 56E6 a#ter  amendments ave an unrestri"ted !oer to the state to de!rive a !erson o# his !ro!erty% It held that &rti"le 56E6 and E> are di##erent #undamental rihts and that the e/!ression la ʺ

ʺ

in &rti"le 56E6 shall 'e valid la and that it "annot 'e valid la unless it amounts to a reasona'le restri"tion in !u'li" interest ithin the meanin o# &rti"le 6EA% ?hile this de"ision "on"eded to the state the !oer to de!rive a !erson o# his !ro!erty 'y la in an a!!ro!riate "ase, it as made su'+e"t to the "ondition that the said la should o!erate as reasona'le restri"tion in !u'li" interest and 'e +usti"ia'le% The Court "onstrued the amended  !rovision reasona'ly in su"h a ay as to salvae to some e/tent the !hiloso!hy o# the Constitution% This 'e"ame ne"essary as the de#inition o# estate as simultaneously e/!anded to "over Ryotari settlements in order to ma.e ararian re#orms more e##e"tive% But the Su!reme Court in SrimathiSita'ai Devi v% State o# ?est Benal  held that &rti"le 56E> i%e%, the !rovision relatin to the a"-uisition or re-uisition o# land as not su'+e"t to &rti"le 6EA% It ould have 'een loi"al i# the e/!ression la in &rti"le 56E> as iven ʺ

ʺ

the same meanin as in &rti"le 56E6% In that event, the la o# a"-uisition or re-uisition should not only "om!ly ith the re-uirements o# &rti"le 56E> and E>2&, 'ut should also satis#y those o# &rti"le 6EA% That is to say, su"h a la should 'e #or a !u'li" !ur!ose,  !rovide #or "om!ensation and also satis#y the dou'le test o# reasona'le restri"tion and ʺ

ʺ

 !u'li" interest !rovided 'y &rti"le 6EA% The reasona'leness o# su"h a la s hould 'e tested

ʺ

ʺ

#rom su'stantive and !ro"edural stand!oints% There may 'e a !u'li" !ur!ose, 'ut the "om!ensation #i/ed may 'e so illusory that it is unreasona'le% The !ro"edure !res"ri'ed #or  8AIR 1960 SC 1080 9 ,1967- 1 SCR 614

16

a"-uisition may 'e so ar'itrary and there#ore unreasona'le% There may 'e many other de#e"ts transressin the standard o# reasona'leness, 'oth su'stantial and !ro"edural% But #rom a  !ra"ti"al stand!oint, the !resent di"hotomy 'eteen the to de"isions 0o"hunni and Sitha'athi Devi did not 'rin a'out any a!!re"ia'le hardshi! to the !eo!le, #or a la o#  a"-uisition or re-uisition hi"h stri"tly "om!lies ith the inredients o# "lause E> may ordinarily also 'e reasona'le restri"tion in !u'li" interest% Su'stantive deviations #rom the ʺ

ʺ

 !rin"i!les o# natural +usti"e may 'e hit 'y &rti"le 6@% Provision #or an illusory "om!ensation may 'e stru". don on the round that it does not "om!ly ith the re-uirement o# &rti"le 56E> itsel#% That is i# the "ourts ma.e it mandatory to 'rin 56E> in "on#ormity ith 56E6% The Su!reme Court in P Ma+ravelu$udalier v% S!e"ial De!uty Colle"tor 6; and also in the Union o# India v% $etal Cor!oration o# India 66 "onsidered &rti"le 56E> in the "onte/t o#  "om!ensation and held that i# the "om!ensation #i/ed as illusory or the !rin"i!les  !res"ri'ed ere irrelevant to the value o# the !ro!erty at or a'out the time o# a"-uisition, it "ould 'e said that the Leislature had "ommitted a #raud on !oer and there#ore the la as inade-uate. The Su!reme Court in three other de"isions "on#ined the 'ar o# &rti"le 562& only to ararian re#orms% In 0o"hunni "ase the Court held that re-uirement o# &rti"le 562& 'ars and atta". on the round o# in#rinement o# #undamental riht only in the "ase o# ararian re#orms, !ertainin to an estate% In Ran+ith Sinh v% State o# Pun+a', 6> it as held that the e/!ression ararian re#orm as ide enouh to ta.e in "onsolidation o# holdins as it as ʺ

ʺ

nothin more than a !ro!er !lannin o# rural areas% In Ma+ravelu de"ision the Su!reme Court e/!lained that there is no "on#li"t 'eteen the said to de"isions and !ointed out that the latter de"ision in"ludes in the e/!ression o# ararian re#orms, the slum "learan"e and other   'ene#i"ial utilisation o# va"ant and aste lands% In a *hula'hai v% Union o# India, 65 the Su!reme Court did not a""e!t the "ontention o# the state that the e/!ression 8state ta.es in ʺ

ʺ

all aste lands, #orest lands, lands #or !astures or sites o# 'uildins in a villae hether they ere "onne"ted ith ari"ulture or not 'ut ruled that the said enumerated lands ould "ome under the said de#inition only i# they ere used #or the !ur!ose o# ari"ulture or #or !ur!oses 10,1965- 1 SCR 614 11 ,1967- 1 SCR 255 12AIR 1965 SC 632 13AIR 1967 SC 1110

17

an"illary thereto% The result o# the 'rie# survey o# the !rovisions o# the Constitution and the "ase la thereon as it stood then may 'e stated in the #orm o# the #olloin !ro!ositions: E6 8very "itien has a #undamental riht to a"-uire, hold and dis!ose o# the !ro!erty% E> The state "an ma.e a la im!osin reasona'le restri"tions on the said riht in !u'li" interest% E5 The said restri"tions, under "ertain "ir"umstan"es, may amount to de!rivation o# the said riht%  E@ ?hether a restri"tion im!osed 'y la on a #undamental riht is reasona'le and in !u'li" interest or not, is a +usti"ia'le issue% EA The state "an 'y la, de!rive a !erson o# his !ro!erty i# the said la o# de!rivation amounts to reasona'le restri"tion in !u'li" interest ithin the meanin o# &rti"le 6EA% EH The state "an a"-uire or re-uisition the !ro!erty o# a !erson #or a !u'li" !ur!ose a#ter   !ayin "om!ensation% E= The ade-ua"y o# the "om!ensation is not +usti"ia'le% EG I# the "om!ensation #i/ed 'y la is illusory or is "ontrary to the !rin"i!les relevant to the #i/ation o# "om!ensation, it ould 'e a #raud on !oer and there#ore the validity o# su"h a la 'e"omes +usti"ia'le% E Las o# ararian re#orm de!rivin or restri"tin the rihts in an estate the said e/!ression ʺ

ʺ

has 'een de#ined to in"lude !ra"ti"ally every ari"ultural land in a villae"annot 'e -uestioned on the round that they have in#rined #undamental rihts% The *irecti/e &rinciple Of State &olicy

Fi#th, it as not even !ermitted to raise the -uestion hether the !ro!osed la ill result, or  isreasona'ly "al"ulated to result, in se"urin the dire"tive !rin"i!le laid don in &rti"le 5E' and E"% The ron done to the !eo!le ho are de!rived o# their 'asi" #reedoms is orsened  'y !rote"tion to those las, hi"h may not 'e at all "al"ulated to ive e##e"t to the dire"tive  !rin"i!les% The riht to move the Su!reme Court to en#or"e other #undamental rihts is itsel#  a #undamental riht E&rti"le 5> and is a 'asi" #eature o# the Constitution% This riht is destroyed hen a #undamental riht is made unen#or"ea'le aainst a la !ur!ortin to ive

18

e##e"t to the dire"tive !rin"i!les and at the same time the "ourt is !re"luded #rom "onsiderin hether the la is su"h that it "an !ossi'ly se"ure any dire"tive !rin"i!le 6@% 4hat is the basic principle of the constit"tion555

Si/th, the 'asi" !rin"i!le o# the Constitution is that no state leislature "an amend the #undamental rihts or any other !art o# the Constitution% This essential #eature is re!udiated  'y 56C, hi"h em!oers even state leislatures to !ass las, hi"h virtually involve a re!eal o# the #undamental rihts% The holly irrational "onse-uen"e is that hereas state leislatures "annot a'ride a sinle #undamental riht, it as no o!en to them to su!ersede a hole series o# su"h rihts% In su'stan"e, the !oer o# amendin or overridin the Constitution is deleated to all state leislatures, hi"h is not !ermissi'le under &rti"le 5HG% One o# the essential #eatures o# the Constitution is to !rovide #or due !rote"tion to minorities and their "ultural and edu"ational rihts% The #undamental rihts under &rti"le 6@,6 and 56, hi"h ere souht to 'e su!erseded 'y &rti"le 56C are ne"essary to ma.e meanin#ul rihts o# the minorities, hi"h are, uaranteed 'y &rti"les >A to 5;% Under the uise o# ivin e##e"t to the dire"tive !rin"i!les, a num'er o# ste!s may 'e ta.en hi"h may seriously undermine the !osition o# reional linuisti", "ultural and other minorities% The !roviso inserted 'y the >Ath amendment is a very tall tale% It e/!ressly !rovides that here the !ro!erty o# an edu"ational institution esta'lished and administered 'y a minority is a"-uired, the amount #i/ed #or the a"-uisition should 'e su"h as not to restri"t or a'roate the riht uaranteed under 5;E6% The "lear im!li"ation is that hen !ro!erty is a"-uired in any other "ases, an amount "an 'e #i/ed hi"h a'roates or restri"ts any other #undamental rihts, #or instan"e, the riht to #reedom o# s!ee"h and e/!ression &rti"le 6E6Ea, to #orm asso"iations or  unions &rti"le 6E6E", or to !ra"ti"e any !ro#ession or "arry out any o""u!ation, trade or   'usiness &rti"le 6E6E, or the riht o# an reliious "ommunity to esta'lish and maintain institutions #or reliious or "harita'le !ur!oses E&rti"le >H% Further, i# a la violates the rihts o# the minorities under &rti"les >A to 5;, su"h la, 'ein invalid, ould 'e no la at all and there#ore de!rivation o# !ro!erty under su"h a la ould violate &rti"le 56E6 hi"h  !rovides that no !erson shall 'e de!rived o# his !ro!erty save 'y authority o# la, i%e% a valid la% But sin"e 56E6 is one o# the arti"les a'roated 'y &rti"le 56C, minorities "an 'e de!rived o# their !ro!erties held !rivately or u!on !u'li" "harita'le or reliious trust, 'y a la hi"h is invalid% In sum, &rti"le 56C is a monstrous outrae on the Constitution% In the 14shvanan+a#ha)athi v. Stat $" /)ala' AIR 1973 SC 1461

19

entire history o# li'erty, never ere so many millions o# !eo!le de!rived o# so many #undamental rihts in one see! as 'y the insertion o# &rti"le 56C% De To"-ueville remar.ed that nothin is more arduous than the a!!renti"eshi! o# li'erty% N &Pal.hivala rihtly remar.s ith rie# in this "onte/t that It is a measure o# our immaturity as a demo"ra"y and the utter  a!athy o# our !eo!le that the 'etrayal o# our 'asi" #reedoms e/"ited hardly any !u'li" de'ate% The Fundamental Rihts Case and its attitude toards the riht to !ro!erty This de"ision hi"h "haned the entire s"enario o# the Indian Constitution did the three #olloin im!ortant "hanes 6%

Throuh &rti"le 56 C too. aay the riht to a"-uire, hold and dis!ose o# the !ro!erty

under &rti"le 6E6 E# >%

Riht to !ro!erty under &rti"le 6E6 E# did not !ertain to the 'asi" stru"ture o# the

"onstitution E7on'le 1usti"e% 7%R%0hanna 5%

&rti"le 6E6 E# "on#erred "itiens the riht to a"-uire, hold and dis!ose o## the

 !ro!erty under &rti"le 6E6 E# hi"h #ormed a !art o# rou! o# arti"les under the headin Riht to Freedom @%

There is no ne"essity #or an ela'orate arument to demonstrate that !ro!erty is

intimately "onne"ted ith the Riht to Freedom%  Article 300-A

Cha!ter IMRiht to Pro!erty, 5;;&% Persons not to 'e de!rived o# !ro!erty save 'y authority o# la no !erson shall 'e de!rived o# his !ro!erty save 'y authority o# la% The @@th amendment a"t hi"h deleted arti"le 6E6 E# and introdu"ed this arti"le 'rouht out the #olloin im!ortant "hanes: 6%

In vie o# the s!e"ial !osition souht to 'e iven to #undamental rihts, the riht to

 !ro!erty, hi"h has 'een the o""asion #or more than one &mendment o# the Constitution, ould "ease to 'e a #undamental riht and 'e"ome only a leal riht% Ne"essary amendments #or this !ur!ose are 'ein made to &rti"le 6 and &rti"le 56 is 'ein deleted% It ould hoever 'e ensured that the removal o# !ro!erty #rom the list o# #undamental rihts ould not a##e"t the rihts o# the minorities to esta'lish and administer edu"ational institutions o#  their "hoi"e%

20

>%

Similarly, the riht o# !ersons holdin land #or !ersonal "ultivation and ithin "eilin

limit to re"eive mar.et "om!ensation at the mar.et value ill not 'e a##e"ted% 5%

Pro!erty, hile "easin to 'e a #undamental riht, ould, hoever, 'e iven e/!ress

re"onition as a leal riht, !rovision 'ein made that no !erson shall 'e de!rived o# his  !ro!erty save in a""ordan"e ith la%  Pro'lems Posed 'y the Removal o# Riht to Pro!erty #rom Fundamental Rihts The rihts "on#erred 'y &rti"le 6E6E# and &rti"le 56 read ith the undernoted entries@>ere so "losely interoven ith the hole #a'ri" o# our Constitution that those rihts "annot 'e torn out ithout leavin a +aed hole and 'ro.en threads% The hole must 'e mended and the 'ro.en threads must 'e re!la"ed so as to harmonise ith the other !arts o#  the Constitution% The tas. is not easy, and "ourts ill 'e "alled u!on to anser !ro'lems more #ormida'le than those raised 'y the &rti"le 56 a#ter it as amended a num'er o# times% 7oever some o# the !ro'lems hi"h ill arise and the !ro'a'le lines o# solution, are "onsidered 'elo:  Ei That &rti"les 6E6 E# and 56E> dealt ith a di##erent, 'ut "onne"ted, as!e"ts o# the riht to !ro!erty is "lear #rom several Su!reme Court de"isions hi"h dealt ith the "o relation o#  those to &rti"les% EiiThe "orre"t vie as that the to &rti"les ere mutually e/"lusive% But one +udement hi"h as soon "orre"ted and another +udement hi"h as a +udement !er in"uriam, to the vie that &rti"les 6E6E# and 56E> ere not mutually e/"lusive% This +udi"ial "on#li"t as resolved 'y >Ath &mendment, hi"h introdu"ed in &rti"le 56 a ne "lause E>2B hi"h  !rovided that Nothin in &rti"le 6E6E# shall e##e"t a ny su"h la as is re#erred in "lause E>% The validity o# this &mendment as unanimously u!held in the 0esavananda "ase% The reason #or this mutual e/"lusiveness as that hen !ro!erty is a"-uired #or a !u'li" !ur!ose on  !ayment o# "om!ensation, the riht o# a "itien to hold !ro!erty is one and the -uestion o#  his riht to hold !ro!erty su'+e"t to reasona'le restri"tions does not arise% Eiii Further, &rti"le 6E6E# that "on#erred "itiens the riht to a"-uire, hold and dis!ose o#   !ro!erty #ormed !art o# a rou! o# arti"les under the headin Riht to Freedom% It re-uires no ela'orate arument to demonstrate that !ro!erty is intimately "onne"ted ith the riht to #reedom% &rti"le 56 a!!eared under the headin Riht to Pro!ertyK #or the riht to #reedom "on#erred 'y &rti"le 6E6 E# ould 'e orth little i# the !ro!erty hen a"-uired "ould 'e

21

ta.en aay 'y la% 7en"e &rti"le% 56 !rovided that !rivate !ro!erty "ould 'e a"-uired only #or a !u'li" !ur!ose and on !ayment o# "om!ensation Elater amount% There is nothin in the Statement o# O'+e"ts and Reasons to sho that Parliament no loner loo.s u!on the riht to a"-uire hold and dis!ose o# !ro!erty as a !art o# the Riht to Freedom% EivThe retention o# &rti"le% 6E6Ea to Ee and E is a "lear indi"ation to the "ontrary% That su'2"lauses Ed, Ee and E# o# &rti"le% 6E6E#E6 ere interlin.ed is "lear #rom their   !rovisions as ell as #rom su'2&rti"le EA hi"h overned ea"h o# those su'2"lauses% The meanin o# &rti"le 6E6 E# has 'een "onsidered and it is 'ein su'mitted that the Su!reme Court "orre"tly held that the riht "on#erred 'y &rti"le 6E6Ed as not a riht o# #ree movement sim!li"iter, 'ut a s!e"ial riht to move #reely throuhout the territory o# India ith a vie to se"ure, amon other thins, the unity o# India hi"h a narro !rovin"ialism ould deny% EvThis riht o# #ree movement as not limited to travellin throuhout India, 'e"ause it as a""om!anied 'y the #urther riht "on#erred 'y &rti"le 6E6 Ee to reside and settle in any !art o# India, as also the riht "on#erred 'y &rti"le 6E6E# to a"-uire, hold and dis!ose o#   !ro!erty, in any !art o# India% But a riht to settle in any !art o# India means not only a riht to have a !la"e to live in, 'ut also a !la"e to or. in, #or &rti"le 6E6E "on#erson every "itien the riht to !ra"tise any !ro#ession, or to "arry on any o""u!ation, trade or 'usiness% EviFurther, &rti"le 6E6Ea "on#ers on every "itien the riht to the #reedom o# s!ee"h and e/!ression, hi"h riht in"ludes the #reedom o# the !ressa riht hi"h is 'asi" to demo"ra"y% But a !ress needs a 'uildin or 'uildins to house it, and mova'le !ro!erty to or. it, so that ithout the riht to a"-uire, hold and dis!ose o# !ro!erty, there "an 'e no #reedom o# the  !ress% &nd the same is 'roadly true o# the #undamental riht "on#erred 'y &rti"le 6E6E"2the riht to #orm asso"iations or unions2#or normally the or.in o# asso"iations and unions involves the riht to a"-uire, hold and dis!ose o# !ro!erty% ?hat then is the e##e"t o# deletin &rti"le 6E6E#, hi"h "on#erred the riht to a"-uire, hold and dis!ose o# !ro!erty, and o#  deletin &rti"le 56 hi"h !rovided #or the a"-uisition o# !ro!erty #or !u'li" !ur!ose on  !ayment o# "om!ensation To these -uestions the Statement o# O'+e"ts and Reasons ives no anser2it is dou't#ul hether those ho #ramed the !ro!erty amendments ere even aare o# their e##e"t on other  #undamental rihts retained in &rti"le 6E6E#E6, and on the !oliti"al unity o# India hi"h &rti"le 6E6E#E6Ed, Ee, E# and E as intended, inter alia, to su' serve, alon ith other 

22

 !rovisions o# our Constitution% &t any rate, the #ramers on these amendments have !rovided no solutions #or the !ro'lem, hi"h the !ro!erty amendments inevita'ly raise% One #urther  "om!li"ation must 'e noted here% <houh &rti"le 6E6E# and &rti"le 56E> had 'een made mutually e/"lusive 'y &rti"le 56E>2B, there as no su"h mutual e/"lusiveness 'eteen &rti"le 56E> and the riht to !ra"tise a !ro#ession or to "arry on any o""u!ation, trade or   'usiness "on#erred 'y &rti"le 6E6E% This riht as su'+e"t to restri"tions mentioned in &rti"le 6E6E#EH% But trade and 'usiness is "a!a'le o# 'ein a"-uired, as Se"tion >E> o#  the *overnment o# India &"t, 65A, "learly shoed% By hat test is the validity o# the la a"-uirin !ro!erty, and a la a"-uirin trade or 'usiness, in"ludin industrial and "ommer"ial underta.ins, to 'e +uded The >Ath &mendment inserted in &rti"le 56 a ne su' "lause E> ith the #olloin !roviso: Provided that in ma.in any la #or the "om!ulsory a"-uisition o# any !ro!erty o# an edu"ational institution esta'lished and administered 'y minority, re#erred to in "lause E6 o#  &rti"le 5;, the State shall insure that e amount #i/ed 'y or determined under su"h la #or the a"-uisition o# su"h !ro!erty is su"h as ould not restri"t or a'roate the riht uaranteed under that "lause% This !roviso re"onised the #a"t that the valua'le riht "on#erred 'y &rti"le 5;E6 on minorities to esta'lish edu"ational institutions o# their "hoi"e ould 'e destroyed i# ade-uate "om!ensation as not made #or a"-uisition o# the !ro!erty o# su"h institutions% Politi"al e/!edien"y may re-uire that minorities should not 'e alienated 'y de!rivin them o# their  "herished rihts, es!e"ially hen minorities are as lare as they are in India% S!e"ial rihts are "on#erred on minorities 'e"ause in a demo"rati" "ountry ith adult universal su##rae, ma+orities 'y virtue o# their num'ers "an !rote"t themselves% But it does seem illoi"al and un+ust to leave out ma+ority edu"ational institutions #rom the same !rote"tion, unless it as  'elieved that ma+orities, de!rived o# their !oer to o!!ress minorities, ould not ish to o!!ress themselves% Thus, in State o# 0erala v% $other Provin"ial, 6A Counsel #or the state told the Su!reme Court that he had instru"tions to say that any !rovision held ina!!li"a'le to minority institutions ould not 'e en#or"ed aainst the ma+ority institutions also% &ain, the 6=th &mendment had introdu"ed in &rti"le% 56&E6Ee the #olloin !roviso: Provided #urther  that here any la ma.es any !rovision #or the a"-uisition 'y the State o# any estate and here any land "om!rised therein is held 'y a !erson under his !ersonal "ultivation, it shall 15,1971- 1 SCR 734.

23

not 'e la#ul #or the State to a"-uire any !ortion o# su"h land as is ithin the "eilin limit a!!li"a'le to him under any la #or the time 'ein in #or"e or any 'uildin or stru"ture standin thereon or a!!urtenant thereto, unless the la relatin to the a"-uisition o# su"h land, 'uildin or stru"ture, !rovides #or !ayment o# "om!ensation at a rate hi"h shall not 'e less than the mar.et value thereo#% To ta.e aay land under !ersonal "ultivation ithout "om!ensation ould 'e un#air and un+ust and the a'ove !roviso !revented su"h in+usti"e  'ein done% It ould 'e e-ually un#air and un+ust to ta.e aay #rom a !erson #olloin a vo"ation, other than ari"ulture, the tools o# his trade, or the !ro!erty 'y hi"h he earns his livin% These o'servations have 'een made 'e"ause the a'ove !rovisos relatin to !ro!erty, hi"h have 'een retained in the "ha!ter on #undamental rihts, re"onise the in+usti"e o#  "on#is"atory las hi"h im!ine on #undamental rihts% In the a'sen"e o# any rational e/!lanation in the Statement o# O'+e"ts and Reasons #or deletin the riht to !ro!erty #rom the "ateory o# #undamental rihts, the relie# aainst in+usti"e !rovided 'y the @@th &mendment a!!ears to have 'een uided 'y !oliti"al e/!edien"y2lare minorities and tillers o# the soil have votes to ive or ithhold% Or it may 'e that the reason as more "om!le/% The 1anata Party havin redeemed its !lede, it as le#t to the Su!reme Court to determine, in the liht o# the !rovisions o# our Constitution, hether the !lede "an 'e "onstitutionally redeemed, and i# so to hat e/tent% Li.eise there are a lot many as!e"ts and lon term evils iven rise 'y @@th &mendment% In short the a'ove dis"ussion shos that it is easy to ma.e an ele"toral !romise to delete riht to !ro!erty #rom the list o# #undamental rihtsK it is not easy to or. out the "onse-uen"es o# that !romise and em'ody them in a Constitution &mendment Bill% Normally, amendment !ro!osin #ar rea"hin "hanes in the Constitution are su'mitted to a Sele"t Committee #or s"rutiny, and re!ort% I# that "ourse as not #olloed, it is di##i"ult to resist the "on"lusion that the s!onsors o# the !ro!erty amendments realied that those amendments ould not stand the s"rutiny o# a Sele"t Committee ith a !oer to e/amine itnesses% The "ourse o# #irst redeemin an ele"toral !romise 'y amendin the Constitution and then leavin it to the "ourts to or. out the "onse-uen"es o# the amendments, must a!!ear attra"tive% &nd that "ourse as #olloed, in the "on#ident 'elie# that the "ourt ould not shir. their duty o# inter!retin the Constitution even i# Parliament !re#erred silen"e to s!ee"h as to its real intentions%

24

%HA&T$R  S(66$ST'O)S A)* R$%O##$)*AT'O)S

 The Ninth s"hedule saa also hihlihts an im!ortant as!e"t o# the Riht o# Center Politi"al and Intelle"tual $ovement in India% That #or 5@ years there as not a murmur o# !rotest or  leal "hallene tells us that there is no Riht o# Center $ovement in India% es there are some ho "laim to 'e #or re#orms and mar.ets 'ut these are individuals ho see "a!italism as an end in itsel# hile missin the underlyin #undamental !rin"i!le o# Individual Freedom% It is this same mindset that endorses the State)s !ursuit o# industrialiation throuh S83s on the  'asis o# !hony #aith in "a!italism hile loo.in the other ay as the State violates #undamental rihts and individual #reedom to a"-uire !rivate !ro!erty on 'ehal# o# !rivate enter!rises% This underlyin intelle"tual "ontradi"tion sums u! hy there is no "onstituen"y #or e"onomi" re#orms in the "ountry 4 'e"ause there is no #undamental 'elie# in the !rima"y o# individual #reedom%

%O)%L(S'O):

Besides #e other thins, hat all the *overnment did as very sim!le% Inserted Ninth S"hedule to the Constitution and said (none o# the &"ts and Reulations s!e"i#ied in the  Ninth S"hedule nor any o# the !rovisions thereo# shall 'e deemed to 'e void, or ever to have  'e"ome void, on the round that su"h &"t, Reulation or !rovisions is in"onsistent ith, or  ta.es aay or a'rides any o# the rihts "on#erred 'y , any !rovisions o# this !art, and notithstandin any +udment , de"ree or order o# any "ourt or tri'unal to the "ontrary, ea"h o# the said &"ts and Reulations shall, su'+e"t to the !oer o# any "om!etent leislature to re!eal or amend it, "ontinue in #or"e ’. In other ords las under Ninth S"hedule are 'eyond the !urvie o# +udi"ial revie even thouh they violate #undamental rihts enshrined under   !art III o# the Constitution% The 'est !art o# this amendment is that it is retros!e"tive in nature that is hen a statute is de"lared un"onstitutional 'y a "ourt and later it is in"luded in the Ninth S"hedule, it is to 'e "onsidered as havin 'een in that S"hedule #rom its "ommen"ement%

25

BIBLIO*R&P7: • •

T78 INDI&N "onstitution , $%P%+ain% T78 L&ND L&?S , C7&NDR&S80&R%

?8BSIT8S: • • •

%indian.annon%or %landlas%or %indian"onstition%or

26