Right to Property: Diluted or Destroyed?

What this essay presents is two opposing sets of arguments that have dominated this discourse of the right to property. On one hand, it is deemed as an inviolable right that should be protected at all costs. However, the state must reserve the right to intervene and acquire the right for the large public benefit that is sought to be achieved in this utilitarian interference. Hence, the big debate is regarding the struggle for power and consequent supremacy between the legislature and the judiciary. Why this is important is because it helps delineate the relationship between the legislature and the judiciary and shows how the judiciary has succumbed to political pressures and has ended up significantly reducing the value of a Part III right. This is sought to be achieved through an array of case laws and a string of amendments which portray how the legislature became a supervening force in disrupting the regime of the right to property from its status as a fundamental right to an ordinary legal right. The goal of this essay, in the result it seeks to achieve, goes into the larger constitutional question of how far the legislature can go in altering these so called ‘inalienable rights’