Article 31

Article 31 was originally part of the Fundamental Rights chapter, guaranteeing that private property could not be taken by the State except by law and (in various versions) with compensation. Over the decades, this clashed with the government's land reform and socialist redistribution goals, leading to repeated amendments (like the 1st, 4th, 7th, 25th, and 42nd Amendments) that diluted property protections. Eventually, the 44th Amendment Act of 1978 removed the right to property from the list of Fundamental Rights altogether, reflecting a political and constitutional shift toward prioritizing land reform, social welfare legislation, and reducing judicial review of compensation amounts. The right was downgraded to a simple legal right under a new Article 300A, meaning it could be restricted by ordinary law but was no longer a Fundamental Right enforceable directly under Article 32.

Before its repeal, Article 31 was central to major Supreme Court battles over land reforms and nationalization, such as in cases dealing with zamindari abolition and bank nationalization, where courts scrutinized whether compensation was 'adequate.' This friction between Parliament and the judiciary was a key reason Parliament repeatedly amended Article 31 and eventually deleted it in 1978. After the repeal, courts have treated the right to property as a constitutional right under Article 300A (not a Fundamental Right), meaning the State can deprive a person of property only through a validly enacted law, but strict fundamental-rights-style scrutiny (like under Article 32) no longer automatically applies.

• Myth: Article 31 still protects property as a Fundamental Right in India today.
  Fact: Article 31 was completely repealed by the 44th Amendment in 1978 (effective 1979); property rights are now only a constitutional/legal right under Article 300A, not a Fundamental Right.
• Myth: Removing Article 31 means the government can take anyone's property without any rules.
  Fact: Courts have held that under Article 300A, the government must still act according to a validly enacted law to deprive someone of property, though it's no longer challengeable as a Fundamental Rights violation.