Raj Darbhanga - Impact On Indian Constitution

Impact On Indian Constitution

After Independence, a Constituent Assembly was formed to frame the constitution of India, and Maharaja Kameshwar Singh was one of its members. One of the major issues facing the Constituent Assembly was the right of property. This is illustrated in an article, "(Un)Constituting Property: The Deconstruction of the 'Right to Property' in India" by Jaivir Singh of the Centre for the Study of Law and Governance, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. To quote a passage from the article:

The broad political impulse after independence was for the ruling Congress Party to eliminate, preferably without compensation, Zamindars – rural intermediaries, who under colonial rule had gained rights over vast tracts of land in many parts of the country, and put into effect a ‘socialist’ Industrial Policy that gave the State a major role in controlling both private (both, through the planning process and a mandate to take over concerns in the public interest) and public industry. Such moves were challenged using the property clause of the Constitution in the courts in a series of cases. For instance, prominent among such cases were - the decision of the Bihar High Court to strike down as unconstitutional the Bihar Management of Estates and Tenures Act, 1949, which was held to violate Articles 19(1)(f) and 314. This judicial threat motivated the First Amendment to the Indian Constitution, which came into being with Parliament passing the First Amendment Act (1951). By this amendment, Articles 31 A, 31 B and the Ninth Schedule were added to the Constitution. Article 31 A permitted the legislation of laws to acquire estates – a term used cover the properties of Zamindars and other categories of revenue farmers, the taking over of property by the State for a limited period either in the ‘public interest’ or to ‘secure the proper management of the property’, amalgamate properties, and extinguish or modify the rights of managers, managing agents, directors, stockholders etc. and those who have licenses or agreements to search or own minerals and oil.

The Full Bench of Patna High Courts struck down the reform laws for being ultra vires and hence unconstitutional due to their being in violation of Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 19 (reasonableness) of the Indian Constitution. The High Courts did not go into the question of Article 31 (Right of Property, now removed from the Indian Constitution). However, this decision combined with decisions of the other High Courts was seen as reactionary and anti-reform. While the decision of the Full Bench of Patna High Court was in appeal, the Constitutional (First Amendment) Act of 1951 was introduced which excluded scrutiny by the Courts of acquisition of property by the state. The courts were excluded from entertaining writs under article 14, 19 and 31 and ousted the Court's jurisdiction to judicial review of land reform measures.

Subsequently, when the appeal in Sir Kameshwar Singh (Darbhanga) v State of Bihar was heard in the Supreme Court of India, it was held that due to the amendment the jurisdiction of the Court's review was only limited to the question of the quantum of compensation and did not affect the Court's jurisdiction to review the acquisition on the question of public purpose.

This case and a few other cases resulted in the right to property being struck from the fundamental rights available to Indians. Thus, Raj Darbhanga indirectly contributed to the abolition of the right of property in India.