宪法的十字路口:印度宪法中的财产权传奇

Stuti Lal, Jayestha Kamboj, Sarthak Sharma
{"title":"宪法的十字路口:印度宪法中的财产权传奇","authors":"Stuti Lal, Jayestha Kamboj, Sarthak Sharma","doi":"10.59126/v3i2a2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Right to own Property has been a contentious topic in India ever since the constitution was drafted. Originally protected by Article 31 as a Fundamental Right, it was progressively diluted by a series of changes designed to limit judicial interference and preserve the legislative branch's authority. Property rights were declared mere Constitutional Rights under Article 300A of the Constitution when the 44th amendment removed them from part III of the Constitution. Through land reforms, the founding fathers sought to strike a compromise between upholding pre-existing property rights and establishing an equitable society. Nevertheless, the battle between the courts and the legislature resulted in a number of corrective rulings and constitutional revisions between 1950 and 1980. The paper examines later modifications and significant cases pertaining to property rights, including certain cases and Amendments and further contrasts India's property rights with those of the United Kingdom and the United States, where they are based under Fundamental Law. This paper contends that the 44th Amendment violated the Socialist principles outlined in the preamble, making it in essence unlawful and has tried to showcase through various case laws, the arbitrariness that the government has portrayed while passing such Constitutional Amendments.","PeriodicalId":497985,"journal":{"name":"THE JOURNAL OF UNIQUE LAWS AND STUDENTS","volume":"42 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"CONSTITUTIONAL CROSSROADS: INDIA’S PROPERTY RIGHTS SAGA IN CONSTITUTIONAL LORE\",\"authors\":\"Stuti Lal, Jayestha Kamboj, Sarthak Sharma\",\"doi\":\"10.59126/v3i2a2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Right to own Property has been a contentious topic in India ever since the constitution was drafted. Originally protected by Article 31 as a Fundamental Right, it was progressively diluted by a series of changes designed to limit judicial interference and preserve the legislative branch's authority. Property rights were declared mere Constitutional Rights under Article 300A of the Constitution when the 44th amendment removed them from part III of the Constitution. Through land reforms, the founding fathers sought to strike a compromise between upholding pre-existing property rights and establishing an equitable society. Nevertheless, the battle between the courts and the legislature resulted in a number of corrective rulings and constitutional revisions between 1950 and 1980. The paper examines later modifications and significant cases pertaining to property rights, including certain cases and Amendments and further contrasts India's property rights with those of the United Kingdom and the United States, where they are based under Fundamental Law. This paper contends that the 44th Amendment violated the Socialist principles outlined in the preamble, making it in essence unlawful and has tried to showcase through various case laws, the arbitrariness that the government has portrayed while passing such Constitutional Amendments.\",\"PeriodicalId\":497985,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"THE JOURNAL OF UNIQUE LAWS AND STUDENTS\",\"volume\":\"42 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"THE JOURNAL OF UNIQUE LAWS AND STUDENTS\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"0\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.59126/v3i2a2\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"THE JOURNAL OF UNIQUE LAWS AND STUDENTS","FirstCategoryId":"0","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.59126/v3i2a2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

自印度起草宪法以来,财产权一直是一个有争议的话题。财产权最初作为一项基本权利受到第 31 条的保护,但随着一系列旨在限制司法干预和维护立法权的修改,财产权逐渐被淡化。第 44 次修正案将财产权从《宪法》第三部分中删除,根据《宪法》第 300A 条,财产权被宣布为纯粹的宪法权利。通过土地改革,开国元勋们试图在维护原有财产权和建立公平社会之间达成妥协。然而,法院与立法机构之间的斗争导致了 1950 年至 1980 年间的一系列纠正性裁决和宪法修订。本文研究了后来的修改和与财产权有关的重要案例,包括某些案例和修正案,并进一步将印度的财产权与英国和美国的财产权进行了对比,因为英国和美国的财产权是以基本法为基础的。本文认为,第 44 条修正案违反了序言中概述的社会主义原则,使其在本质上成为非法,并试图通过各种判例法展示政府在通过此类宪法修正案时所表现出的武断性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
CONSTITUTIONAL CROSSROADS: INDIA’S PROPERTY RIGHTS SAGA IN CONSTITUTIONAL LORE
The Right to own Property has been a contentious topic in India ever since the constitution was drafted. Originally protected by Article 31 as a Fundamental Right, it was progressively diluted by a series of changes designed to limit judicial interference and preserve the legislative branch's authority. Property rights were declared mere Constitutional Rights under Article 300A of the Constitution when the 44th amendment removed them from part III of the Constitution. Through land reforms, the founding fathers sought to strike a compromise between upholding pre-existing property rights and establishing an equitable society. Nevertheless, the battle between the courts and the legislature resulted in a number of corrective rulings and constitutional revisions between 1950 and 1980. The paper examines later modifications and significant cases pertaining to property rights, including certain cases and Amendments and further contrasts India's property rights with those of the United Kingdom and the United States, where they are based under Fundamental Law. This paper contends that the 44th Amendment violated the Socialist principles outlined in the preamble, making it in essence unlawful and has tried to showcase through various case laws, the arbitrariness that the government has portrayed while passing such Constitutional Amendments.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
CONSTITUTIONAL CROSSROADS: INDIA’S PROPERTY RIGHTS SAGA IN CONSTITUTIONAL LORE CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF FRAUDS AND CYBER CRIMES IN THE BANKING SECTOR
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1