In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has reaffirmed the state’s constitutional obligation to protect, rather than infringe upon, the civil rights of citizens—particularly the right to property. The court emphasized that while the right to property is no longer a fundamental right, it remains a sacrosanct constitutional and legal right under Article 300A of the Constitution.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, delivering the judgment on May 2, stated, “The state, being a constitutional authority and repository of public trust, is duty-bound to protect, rather than transgress, the civil rights of its citizens, including the right to property. The powers of the state are not plenary or absolute but are circumscribed by constitutional and statutory limitations.”
The case involved the wrongful forfeiture of a flat in Ansal Bhawan, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA). The plaintiffs, who claimed to be the rightful owners, alleged that their proprietary rights were systematically violated during the Emergency era. The state, through the Directorate of Estates, had claimed the property was forfeited to the central government based on a now-revoked detention order.
The High Court found that the occupation of the property by the government from 1999 to 2020 was unlawful and awarded the plaintiffs over ₹1.76 crore as mesne profits with interest, based on market rental value.
The court underlined that any executive or legislative action that divests a citizen of their property without due process or in the absence of an enabling law is violative of Article 300A and is void ab initio. It stressed that in a constitutional democracy governed by justice, equity, and good conscience, the preservation of legal rights—especially proprietary rights—must be a non-negotiable state commitment.
Justice Kaurav warned against executive overreach, stating, “The state must not only comply with the letter of the law but also act in a manner that is fair, just, and equitable. Executive overreach beyond the four corners of the law must be met with constitutional censure, for when the protector of rights becomes the violator, the very fabric of the rule of law is imperiled.”
