Revision summary
Zamindari abolition and ceilings collided with the fundamental right to property, so Parliament built Articles 31A, 31B, and the Ninth Schedule in the First Amendment. The Fourth and Seventeenth Amendments tightened compensation rules and widened ‘estate’ to catch more tenures. Golaknath led to the Twenty-fourth Amendment restoring the power to amend fundamental rights. The Twenty-fifth Amendment’s Article 31C linked land and resource redistribution to Directive Principles; Kesavananda then limited Parliament through basic structure. The Forty-second Amendment over-expanded that project; the Forty-fourth Amendment ended property as a fundamental right and placed it in Article 300A.
Model answer
Introduction
Land reform was a promise of the freedom struggle and a test of the Constitution. Zamindari abolition, tenancy protection, and ceilings struck at property as a fundamental right. Parliament therefore amended the Constitution repeatedly so that agrarian legislation would not die in court. The comment is on that constitutional struggle, not on every state’s land-record success.
Body
The First and Fourth Amendments
Early zamindari laws were challenged as violations of Articles 14, 19, and 31. In Kameshwar Singh and related litigation, the Supreme Court and High Courts constrained the project. The First Amendment (1951) inserted Articles 31A and 31B and the Ninth Schedule to immunise specified agrarian laws. Nehru told Parliament that social revolution must not be vetoed by a colonial-minded reading of property.
- The Fourth Amendment (1955) further tightened Article 31: the adequacy of compensation for certain acquisitions would not be justiciable in the same way, and more state laws entered the Ninth Schedule. The political theory is clear. Property remained a right, but it was made to bow to agrarian redistribution.
Seventeenth, and the Kesavananda sequence
The Seventeenth Amendment (1964) widened ‘estate’ so ryotwari tenures could be reached after Karimbil Kunhikoman. Golaknath (1967) then barred amendment of fundamental rights. The Twenty-fourth Amendment (1971) restored that power. The Twenty-fifth inserted Article 31C, protecting laws for Articles 39(b) and (c) from 14, 19, and 31. Kesavananda (1973) added basic structure. The Forty-second Amendment (1976) tried to widen 31C to all Directive Principles. The Forty-fourth (1978) deleted the fundamental right to property and placed it in Article 300A. Implementation is another story; the amendments show land justice as a constitutional battlefield.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD LR[Land reform] --> P[Article 31 property] P --> A1[1st 4th 17th] P --> A2[24th 25th] A2 --> K[Kesavananda] K --> A3[42nd then 44th / 300A]
Conclusion
Land reform forced India to rewrite the property clauses. The First, Fourth, and Seventeenth Amendments saved agrarian laws; the Twenty-fourth and Twenty-fifth reopened amending power and Directive Principle protection; the Forty-second overreached; the Forty-fourth took property out of Part III. The comment is that the Constitution was not a barrier accidentally; it was a battlefield by design.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
Delineate the key factors that have shaped the evolving political landscape in Jammu and Kashmir post 2019
Next question in the 2025 paper (Q5). View answer →
-
Did the Ninth Schedule make land laws eternal?
It tried to immunise them. In *I. R. Coelho* (2007) the Court held that Ninth Schedule laws can still be tested against the basic structure, so immunity is not absolute.
-
Was the Forty-second Amendment mainly about land?
No. It was a wide Emergency rewrite. For land and social revolution it mattered because it sought to expand 31C to all Directive Principles.
PYQ trend
When UPSC asked this
Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.
-
2024 · Q6(c) · PSIR GS 1 · 15 marks
The legacy of the Planning Commission still has a bearing on India's development policies. Discuss. -
2021 · Q7(c) · PSIR GS 1 · 15 marks
What explains India's modest improvements in social development outcomes even as the rate of growth has accelerated since the initiation of economic reforms?
More from this paper
Q1(a) · UPSC Mains 2025 · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Explain the Philosophical approach to the study of Political theory
Political Theory
The philosophical approach treats political theory as reasoned inquiry into meaning, right, and the good regime. It defines concepts such as the state, obligation, and justice, and tests them against rival claims. Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, and Rawls are central practitioners of this method. Strauss, Oakeshott, Berlin, and Arendt show that texts and categories still organise modern debate. The approach is not a substitute for behavioural data or institutional history, but it supplies questions that measurement cannot invent.
Q1(b) · UPSC Mains 2025 · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Write a note on the relation between equality and liberty from the multi-cultural perspective
Political Theory
Liberty is non-arbitrary space of action; equality is the claim that this space belongs to every person. Mill and Berlin warn that liberty can be crushed in the name of a single real self or a uniform good. Taylor, Kymlicka, and Parekh show that recognition and group-differentiated rights can be liberal tools in diverse societies. Uniform rules may still silence minorities; group vetoes may still silence women and dissenters inside a community. The Indian Constitution already pairs equal citizenship with cultural rights, which is the practical form of this relation.
Q1(c) · UPSC Mains 2025 · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Explain the Macpherson's view on power
Political Theory
Macpherson read Hobbes and Locke as theorists of possessive individualism: the person as owner of capacities in a market society. The liberal state in that reading mainly protects property and contract. He then distinguished extractive power, which takes benefit from others, from developmental power, which is the ability to unfold human capacities. Democracy should be judged by equal developmental power, not only by elections or negative liberty. The argument retrieves an ethical liberalism and a non-authoritarian Marxism against a thin competitive elite model of democracy.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.