Article 300A

Originally, the right to property was a Fundamental Right under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31. This caused major conflicts between land reform laws (like abolishing zamindari estates) and courts protecting property owners, delaying social justice legislation. To end this deadlock, the 44th Constitutional Amendment (1978) removed property from the list of Fundamental Rights and instead created Article 300A as a simple constitutional right, giving the state more freedom to acquire property for public purposes while still requiring it to act only through valid law, not arbitrary executive action.

Because Article 300A is not a Fundamental Right, a person cannot go straight to the Supreme Court under Article 32; they must approach the High Court under Article 226 or ordinary courts. Despite being a lower-tier right, courts have insisted it still has teeth. In K.T. Plantation Pvt Ltd v. State of Karnataka (2011), the Supreme Court held that the 'law' depriving someone of property must be validly enacted, non-arbitrary, and must provide for some form of fair compensation or procedure, effectively reading in elements of due process. In Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2020), the Court reaffirmed that the State cannot forcibly take a citizen's land without following the law of acquisition, even decades after such possession, and ordered compensation.

• Myth: Article 300A means property rights are no longer protected in India.
  Fact: Property is no longer a Fundamental Right, but Article 300A still legally protects citizens from having property taken without valid law and fair procedure, as courts have confirmed.
• Myth: If land is taken under Article 300A, no compensation is required.
  Fact: Courts have read into Article 300A a requirement that the law authorizing acquisition must be fair and reasonable, which in practice usually includes some compensation.