Reasonable restrictions on fundamental rights and right to property

Reasonable restrictions on Fundamental Rights and Right to Property

Fundamental Rights are the basic rights of the people and the charter of rights contained in Part III of Constitution of India. It guarantees civil liberties such that all Indians can lead their lives in peace and harmony as citizens of India. These include individual rights common to most liberal democracies, such as Equality before law, freedom of speech and expression, religious and cultural freedom and peaceful assembly, freedom to practice religion, and the right to constitutional remedies for the protection of civil rights by means of writs such as Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari and Quo Warranto.

Though the Constitution of India guarantees all these Fundamental rights for the citizen, yet there are some limitation and exceptions of these rights also. A citizen can not enjoy Fundamental Rights absolutely or at will.

Reasonable’ means that which is in accordance with reason, and which is associated with logic and not arbitrariness. It implies intelligent care and deliberation that which reason dictates. The expression “reasonable restriction” signifies that the limitation imposed on a person in the enjoyment of the right should not be arbitrary or of an excessive nature beyond what is required in the interest of the public.

Within some Constitutional limitation citizen can enjoy their Rights. The Constitution of India imposes some reasonable restrictions upon enjoyment of these Rights so, that public order, morality and Health remain intact . The Constitution always aims at restoration of collective interest along with individual interest .For example, right to religion is subject to restrictions imposed by the state in the interest of public order, morality and health so, that the freedom of religion may not be abused to committee crimes or anti-social activities . Similarly Rights guaranteed by ARTICLE-19 does not mean absolute Liberty . Absolute individual rights can not be guaranteed by any modern state . There fore our Constitution also empowered the state to impose reasonable restrictions as may be necessary in the larger interest of the community . our Constitution always attempts “ to strike a balance between individual liberty and social control .” and to establish a welfare state where collective interest got prominence over individual interest .Freedom of speech and expression (Art.19-1-A) is also subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by the state relating to defamation, Contempt of Court, decency or morality, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states , incitement to an offence, public order, maintenance of the Sovereignty and Integrity of India . Freedom of Assembly (Art.19-1-B) is also subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by the state that the assembly must be peaceful and without arms in the interest of public order. Freedom of Press which is included in the wider freedom of expression is also subject to reasonable limitations and the state can impose restriction upon freedom of press in the larger interest of the state or for the prevention of contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.

Right to property

Property, as a legal and social institution, has different forms in different cultures and legal systems. However, only a definition of Constitutional property is common in all democratic countries. Since state exercises eminent domain power against private property, it is pertinent to discuss the concept of private property in brief. The institution of private property has been a controversial issue with conflicting views, one completely denying the right to own private property and the other supports the holding of the private property. However, the right to property is a natural and inherent right of an individual.

After independence, no Fundamental right has caused so much trouble and has given so much of litigation between the government and citizens as the property right. The reason is that the central and state governments have enacted massive hysteron of laws to regulate property rights. First, the government undertook to reconstruct the agrarian economy, interalia, by trying to confer right to property on tillers, abolition of zamindaris, giving security of tenure to tenants, fixing a ceiling limit on personal holding of agricultural land and redistributing the surplus land among the landless. Secondly, in the area of urban property, measures have been taken to provide housing to the people, clearance of slums and planning, control rents, acquire property and impose a ceiling on urban land ownership etc., Thirdly, government has undertaken to regulate private enterprises and nationalization of some commercial undertakings. These various legislative measures have been undertaken to effectuate accepted goal of establishing a socialistic pattern of Society. Hence Articles 31 and 19(1)(f) were repealed. Historical evolution and demise of repealed Articles 31 and 19(1)(f) are still relevant for the understanding of constitutional developments of property right. Since the commencement of the Constitution fundamental right conferred by Article 31 and Article 19(1)(f) has been modified by six times by the constitutional amendments. The first amendment added two explanatory Articles 31-A & 31-B to the Constitution; the fourth amendment amended clause (2) of Article 31, added clause (2A) to the same Article, inserted new provisions in Article 31-A and enlarged the ninth schedule; the seventeenth amendment further elaborated the definition of ‘estate’ in clause (2) of Article 31-A; and the twenty fifth amendment amended Article 31(2), added clause (2-B) and added a new Article 31-C. In the forty second amendment Article 31-C was substituted by the words “ the principles specified in clause (b) or clause (c) of the Article 39” for the words “all or any of the principles laid down in part IV of the Constitution”.

finally forty fourth amendment repealed the entire Article 31 and Article 19(1)(f) & inserted Article 300A.

Ninth Schedule – A Protective Umbrella

Article 31-B, does not by itself give any fundamental right. The Acts and regulations placed under ninth schedule shall not be deemed to be void or ever to have become void on the ground of its inconsistency with any fundamental right. In Kameshwar Singh 80 case, The Supreme Court said that no Act brought under the ninth schedule could be invalidated on the ground of violation of any fundamental rights.

With the introduction of the above amendment, it became very easy for the Government to acquire property and to carryout different agrarian reforms. Firstly the acquisition laws under the fear of being challenged were inserted in the ninth schedule by the constitutional amendments and thereby the concerned laws were made immune from challenge against any of the fundamental rights guaranteed under part III of the Constitution.

So for now right to property in india is a statutory right under the article 300A of Indian constitution.

The fundamental rights are essential for the protection of individual liberty and the promotion of social Justice. They are enshrined in the Constitution of India and are guaranteed to all citizens. However, these rights are not absolute and can be restricted by the state in certain circumstances.

The power to restrict fundamental rights is vested in the state by Article 19(2) of the Constitution. This article lists down the grounds on which fundamental rights can be restricted. These grounds include the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.

The restrictions imposed on fundamental rights must be reasonable and must not be arbitrary or excessive. The Supreme Court has held that the restrictions must be imposed in the interest of the general public and must not be for the benefit of any particular individual or group.

The right to property is a fundamental right guaranteed by Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. This right was originally included in the list of fundamental rights in the Constitution of 1950. However, it was deleted from the list of fundamental rights by the 44th Amendment of the Constitution in 1978.

The right to property is now a legal right and not a fundamental right. This means that the state can take away the right to property by law, provided that the law is just and fair.

The following are some of the case laws that have dealt with the issue of reasonable restrictions on fundamental rights:

Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): In this case, the Supreme Court held that the fundamental rights are not absolute and can be restricted by the state in certain circumstances. However, the restrictions must be reasonable and must not be arbitrary or excessive.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): In this case, the Supreme Court held that the right to life and personal liberty is a fundamental right and cannot be taken away except in accordance with the Procedure Established by Law.
R.K. Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar (1958): In this case, the Supreme Court held that the right to freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right but can be restricted in certain circumstances, such as in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): In this case, the Supreme Court held that the right to Freedom of Association is a fundamental right but can be restricted in certain circumstances, such as in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.

The fundamental rights are essential for the protection of individual liberty and the promotion of social justice. They are a bulwark against the arbitrary exercise of power by the state. However, these rights are not absolute and can be restricted in certain circumstances. The restrictions must be reasonable and must not be arbitrary or excessive. The Supreme Court has the power to strike down laws that violate fundamental rights.

What are fundamental rights?

Fundamental rights are the basic rights and freedoms that are guaranteed to all citizens of a country by the constitution. They are essential for the protection of individual liberty and the promotion of Democracy.

What are the types of fundamental rights?

The types of fundamental rights vary from country to country, but they typically include rights such as the right to life, liberty, and security of person; the right to equality before the law; the right to freedom of speech, assembly, and association; the right to freedom of religion; and the right to property.

What are the restrictions on fundamental rights?

Fundamental rights are not absolute rights. They can be restricted in certain circumstances, such as when they conflict with other rights or when they are necessary to protect national security or public order.

What is the right to property?

The right to property is the right to own and possess property. It is a fundamental right that is guaranteed in many constitutions. The right to property includes the right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property, as well as the right to enjoy the fruits of one’s labor.

What are the restrictions on the right to property?

The right to property is not absolute. It can be restricted in certain circumstances, such as when it is necessary for the public good or when it is in the interest of the general welfare.

What are the consequences of violating fundamental rights?

Violating fundamental rights can have serious consequences, both for the individual who is the victim of the violation and for the government that is responsible for the violation. Individuals who have their fundamental rights violated may be able to seek redress through the courts, and governments that violate fundamental rights may be subject to international sanctions.

What are the remedies for violations of fundamental rights?

There are a number of remedies that can be available to individuals who have their fundamental rights violated. These remedies may include compensation, restitution, or an apology. In some cases, individuals may also be able to seek an injunction to prevent the government from continuing to violate their rights.

What are the challenges in protecting fundamental rights?

There are a number of challenges in protecting fundamental rights. One challenge is that fundamental rights are often in conflict with each other. For example, the right to freedom of speech may conflict with the Right to Privacy. Another challenge is that fundamental rights can be violated by both governments and private individuals. Finally, it can be difficult to enforce fundamental rights, especially in countries where there is a lack of respect for the Rule of Law.

What are the strategies for protecting fundamental rights?

There are a number of strategies that can be used to protect fundamental rights. One strategy is to include a bill of rights in the constitution. A bill of rights is a document that sets out the fundamental rights of citizens and guarantees that these rights will be protected by the government. Another strategy is to establish an Independent Judiciary that can review laws and government actions to ensure that they do not violate fundamental rights. Finally, it is important to educate the public about fundamental rights and to encourage them to exercise their rights.

Sure. Here are some MCQs on the topics of reasonable restrictions on fundamental rights and right to property:

Which of the following is not a fundamental right?
(A) Right to equality
(B) Right to freedom
(C) Right to property
(D) Right to life
Which of the following is not a reasonable restriction on a fundamental right?
(A) A law that prohibits the sale of alcohol
(B) A law that requires people to wear helmets while driving
(C) A law that requires people to vote
(D) A law that prohibits people from owning guns
The right to property is a fundamental right in India.
(A) True
(B) False
The right to property can be taken away by the government if it is in the public interest.
(A) True
(B) False
The government can take away your property without compensation.
(A) True
(B) False
The right to property is not absolute.
(A) True
(B) False
The right to property can be restricted by the government in the following ways:
(A) By imposing taxes
(B) By taking possession of property for public purposes
(C) By regulating the use of property
(D) All of the above
The right to property is not a fundamental right in the United States.
(A) True
(B) False
The right to property is protected by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
(A) True
(B) False
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.
(A) True
(B) False