The Right to Property in India is aa)Fundamental Rightb)Constitutional or Legal Rightc)All of thesed)None of theseCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

EduRev

All Courses

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > The Right to Property in India is aa)Fundamen...

The Right to Property in India is a

a)
Fundamental Right
b)
Constitutional or Legal Right
c)
All of these
d)
None of these

Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Join for Free

Join for Free

Verified Answer

The Right to Property in India is aa)Fundamental Rightb)Constitutional...

Thus, the right to acquire, hold and dispose of the property has ceased to be a fundamental right under the Constitution of India, but it continues to be a legal or constitutional right that no person can be deprived of his property save and except by and in accordance with law.

View all questions of this test

Most Upvoted Answer

The Right to Property in India is aa)Fundamental Rightb)Constitutional...

The Right to Property in India is a Constitutional or Legal Right.

Explanation:

The Right to Property was initially included as a Fundamental Right in the Indian Constitution under Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31. However, in 1978, the 44th Amendment Act was passed which abolished the Right to Property as a Fundamental Right and converted it into a Constitutional or Legal Right under Article 300A.

Some important points to note about the Right to Property in India are:

- The Right to Property is now a Constitutional or Legal Right under Article 300A which states that no person shall be deprived of his property except by authority of law. This means that the state can acquire private property for public use, but it has to be done through a legal process and with proper compensation to the owner.

- The 44th Amendment Act also removed Article 19(1)(f) which gave citizens the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property. This means that while citizens still have the right to own property, it is not a fundamental right anymore.

- The Right to Property is not an absolute right and can be restricted by law. For example, the state can impose reasonable restrictions on the use of property in the interest of public order, morality or health.

- The Right to Property in India has a complex history and has gone through several changes over the years. It was initially seen as a way to protect the rights of property owners, but it was also criticized for being a tool of the elites to maintain their power and privilege. The abolition of the Right to Property as a Fundamental Right was seen as a move towards greater social justice and redistribution of resources.

In conclusion, the Right to Property in India is now a Constitutional or Legal Right under Article 300A, which means that it is still an important right but not a fundamental one. The state can acquire private property for public use but has to do so through a legal process and with proper compensation to the owner. Citizens still have the right to own property, but it is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law.

Answered by Glance Learning Institute · View profile

Free Test

FREE

Test: Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles And Fundamental Duties
30 Ques | 25 Min

Start Free Test

View all free CLAT tests

Community Answer

The Right to Property in India is aa)Fundamental Rightb)Constitutional...

Earlier article 19 d of 3rd part of the Indian constitution provided the right to property as a fundamental rights, which was later removed as an F.R. in the year 1978 by the 44th constitutional amendment.

Since then it continues to be a legal right.

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Constitution of India guarantees to all its citizens certain fundamental freedoms, which are recognized as their fundamental rights. However, these fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution of India are not absolute as no right can be. Each of these fundamental rights is liable to be controlled, curtailed and regulated to some extent by laws made by the Parliament or the State Legislatures. Accordingly, the Constitution of India lays down the grounds and the purposes for which a legislature can impose reasonable restrictions on the rights guaranteed to citizens. The State cannot travel beyond the contours of these reasonable restrictions in curbing the fundamental rights guaranteed to citizens. While determining the constitutional validity of a restriction imposed on a fundamental right by a legislation, the Court is not concerned with the necessity of the restriction or the wisdom of the policy underlying it, but only whether the restriction is in excess of the requirement, and whether the legislature has overstepped the Constitutional limitations. Two of the fundamental rights guaranteed to every citizen of India are- the right to move freely throughout the territory of India and the right to reside and settle in any part of India. However, the State may impose reasonable restrictions on these rights by law, in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled tribes.Q.A law was enacted by the Parliament of India which consisted of a provision making it mandatory for every person riding a two-wheeler in India, to wear a helmet, failing which such person was made liable to a fine. Mr. X, a citizen of India, was fined for violation of the said provision. Mr. X challenged the constitutional validity of the said provision. In the given situation, which of the following statements is/are correct?

View answer

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Constitution of India guarantees to all its citizens certain fundamental freedoms, which are recognized as their fundamental rights. However, these fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution of India are not absolute as no right can be. Each of these fundamental rights is liable to be controlled, curtailed and regulated to some extent by laws made by the Parliament or the State Legislatures. Accordingly, the Constitution of India lays down the grounds and the purposes for which a legislature can impose reasonable restrictions on the rights guaranteed to citizens. The State cannot travel beyond the contours of these reasonable restrictions in curbing the fundamental rights guaranteed to citizens. While determining the constitutional validity of a restriction imposed on a fundamental right by a legislation, the Court is not concerned with the necessity of the restriction or the wisdom of the policy underlying it, but only whether the restriction is in excess of the requirement, and whether the legislature has overstepped the Constitutional limitations. Two of the fundamental rights guaranteed to every citizen of India are- the right to move freely throughout the territory of India and the right to reside and settle in any part of India. However, the State may impose reasonable restrictions on these rights by law, in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled tribes.Q. Mr. Z, a citizen of India, was issued a passport on June 1, 2020 by the Passport Office. Mr. Z was due to travel to Spain on July 15, 2021. On July 11, 2021, Mr. Z received a letter from the Regional Passport Officer intimating him that it was decided by the Government of India to seize his passport in public interest. Mr. Z was required to surrender his passport within seven days of the receipt of that letter. In the given situation, which of the following statements is correct?

View answer

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Constitution of India guarantees to all its citizens certain fundamental freedoms, which are recognized as their fundamental rights. However, these fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution of India are not absolute as no right can be. Each of these fundamental rights is liable to be controlled, curtailed and regulated to some extent by laws made by the Parliament or the State Legislatures. Accordingly, the Constitution of India lays down the grounds and the purposes for which a legislature can impose reasonable restrictions on the rights guaranteed to citizens. The State cannot travel beyond the contours of these reasonable restrictions in curbing the fundamental rights guaranteed to citizens. While determining the constitutional validity of a restriction imposed on a fundamental right by a legislation, the Court is not concerned with the necessity of the restriction or the wisdom of the policy underlying it, but only whether the restriction is in excess of the requirement, and whether the legislature has overstepped the Constitutional limitations. Two of the fundamental rights guaranteed to every citizen of India are- the right to move freely throughout the territory of India and the right to reside and settle in any part of India. However, the State may impose reasonable restrictions on these rights by law, in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled tribes.Q.A group of Indian students of XYZ University located in New Delhi, India posted on social networking sites that they would hold a demonstration outside the university campus, protesting against a recently passed law which made it compulsory for university students to wear uniforms while attending classes. The students further threatened to use whatever means necessary to stop the oppression of students. Therefore, the State Authorities placed barricades around the university campus in order to restrict movement of the students carrying out the demonstration and ensuring that the demonstration does not turn violent. In the given situation, which of the following statements is correct regarding the act of placing of barricades by State Authorities?

View answer

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Constitution of India guarantees to all its citizens certain fundamental freedoms, which are recognized as their fundamental rights. However, these fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution of India are not absolute as no right can be. Each of these fundamental rights is liable to be controlled, curtailed and regulated to some extent by laws made by the Parliament or the State Legislatures. Accordingly, the Constitution of India lays down the grounds and the purposes for which a legislature can impose reasonable restrictions on the rights guaranteed to citizens. The State cannot travel beyond the contours of these reasonable restrictions in curbing the fundamental rights guaranteed to citizens. While determining the constitutional validity of a restriction imposed on a fundamental right by a legislation, the Court is not concerned with the necessity of the restriction or the wisdom of the policy underlying it, but only whether the restriction is in excess of the requirement, and whether the legislature has overstepped the Constitutional limitations. Two of the fundamental rights guaranteed to every citizen of India are- the right to move freely throughout the territory of India and the right to reside and settle in any part of India. However, the State may impose reasonable restrictions on these rights by law, in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled tribes.Q. Which of the following statements is incorrect?

View answer

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Constitution of India guarantees to all its citizens certain fundamental freedoms, which are recognized as their fundamental rights. However, these fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution of India are not absolute as no right can be. Each of these fundamental rights is liable to be controlled, curtailed and regulated to some extent by laws made by the Parliament or the State Legislatures. Accordingly, the Constitution of India lays down the grounds and the purposes for which a legislature can impose reasonable restrictions on the rights guaranteed to citizens. The State cannot travel beyond the contours of these reasonable restrictions in curbing the fundamental rights guaranteed to citizens. While determining the constitutional validity of a restriction imposed on a fundamental right by a legislation, the Court is not concerned with the necessity of the restriction or the wisdom of the policy underlying it, but only whether the restriction is in excess of the requirement, and whether the legislature has overstepped the Constitutional limitations. Two of the fundamental rights guaranteed to every citizen of India are- the right to move freely throughout the territory of India and the right to reside and settle in any part of India. However, the State may impose reasonable restrictions on these rights by law, in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled tribes.Q.The appropriate authority in a State passed an externment order against Mr. A, a citizen of India. The externment order prohibited Mr. A, from residing within the State, from the date specified in such order. The externment order was passed by virtue of powers conferred on the appropriate authority by law, and the constitutional validity of this law had been upheld by the Supreme Court of India. The externment order was passed on the ground that Mr. A was found to be frequently engaged in illegal business of narcotic drugs and was also involved in several cases of riot and criminal intimidation. In the given situation, which of the following statements is correct regarding the externment order?

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Crash Course for CLAT

CLAT Mock Test Series 2026