The 44th Amendment
The petition contested the 44th Amendment’s removal of Article 19 (1) (f) from the Fundamental Rights part of the Constitution. “In light of the particular position proposed to be granted to fundamental rights,” the goal of this Amendment states, “the right to property, which has been the subject of more than one constitutional amendment, would cease to be a fundamental right and become just a legal right.” Article 19 is being amended as needed for this purpose, and Article 31 (compulsory acquisition of property) is being abolished.”
The petitioner argued that the relevance of an individual’s right to private property has dwindled over time. Acquisition schemes have repeatedly invaded it with no safeguards regarding the law’s rationality or ultimate purpose. The “right to property,” which existed as a “fundamental right” was integral to the basic framework and could not be changed when the Keshavananda Bharati case was handed down.
According to the petitioner, Article 19 (1) (f) was intimately related to Articles 19 (1) (d), (e), and (g), namely, the right to move, the right to dwell and settle in any area of the country, and the right to occupation, which together comprised the nation’s fabric of unity and integrity. These other rights would become fleeting and meaningless without the freedom to acquire, retain, and dispose of the property.
As a result, the petitioner requested that the 44th Amendment be struck down to violate the Constitution’s basic structure.
Why Was Right to Property Removed From Fundamental Rights?
Every day, some legal reform or other occurs. Certain rights have been provided to us, along with responsibilities. Fundamental rights are granted to people in the Constitution to safeguard them. However, the Right to Property was changed into a legal right (from a fundamental right) after an amendment.