What is considered 'Property' in the constitutional Right to Property in India?

Question

When talking about the Constitutional Right to Property(Art. 300A), what counts as 'Property'?

I have been reading about how Right to Property was removed as a Fundamental Right(Art. 19(f) & 31) and introduced as a Constitutional Right instead. All the literature and discussion about the issue seems to focused entirely on Land i.e. land reforms, redistribution of land, zamindari system, land acquisition for development projects. But there are other types of property, some of which are more fundamental to a human than land, for example, intellectual property. Intellectual property has its own set of laws in India. But can it be ultimately be forcefully acquired by the State, if purpose is 'public welfare' and reasonable compensation is provided?

How exactly does the Constitution of India define 'Property'?

Answer 1

How exactly does the Constitution of India define 'Property'?

The short answer is that it doesn't.

This definition has been left to the courts of India that are forced to interpret the Constitution of India to determine based upon the intent of the drafters of the Constitution of India and the legal meaning of the word at the time it was adopted, on a case by case basis as issues are presented to it in real world cases.

There is, of course, lots of case law interpreting the Constitution of India, and a copy of it annotated with the decisions interpreting the various provisions related to Property would provide insight.

I recognize that the content of those decisions is probably what you really meant to ask about, but I don't have access to legal resources that can answer the obvious follow up question to my answer. A short law student note in an Indian law review indicates that almost every aspect of this definition is highly contentious and the subject of ongoing constitutional litigation:

In terms of its existence and construction, right to property is perhaps the most contentious human right. The debate centres on who is considered to have property rights protected, what types of property are protected, why property can be regulated and the amount to which property is protected is limited under all human rights documents, either implicitly or explicitly. This paper analyses the continued efforts of the Indian State to reshape ownership relations in society, in order to achieve the aims of economic development and social development, as seen from drafting the original clause on constitutional ownership and its development through judicial interpretation, legislation and the constitutional amendment, with Article 300A being the focal point.

A 2010 article on point states:

The obvious first question is as to whether or not ‘intellectual property’ such as ‘clinical trial data’ would fall within the definition of ‘property’ as understood in Article 300A. There seems to be enough authority to support the proposition that ‘property’ as understood in Article 300A is wider than just ‘immovable property’. One such authority in the context of ‘intellectual property rights’ is the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Entertainment Network India Ltd. (ENIL) v. Super Cassette Industries Ltd. (SCIL). In pertinent part the Court held the following:

The ownership of any copyright like ownership of any other property must be considered having regard to the principles contained in Article 19(1)(g) read with Article 300A of the Constitution, besides, the human rights on property.

The judgment goes on further to say that:

But the right of property is no longer a fundamental right. It will be subject to reasonable restrictions. In terms of Article 300A of the Constitution, it may be subject to the conditions laid down therein, namely, it may be wholly or in part acquired in public interest and on payment of reasonable compensation.

The fact that the Supreme Court recognizes ‘copyright’ to fall within Article 300A is indicative that even ‘clinical trial data’, collected after extensive experimenting, should in all likelihood fall within the definition of ‘property’ as understood in Article 300A.

Given that article, the answer to this question:

can [intellectual property] be ultimately be forcefully acquired by the State, if purpose is 'public welfare' and reasonable compensation is provided?

appears to be that, yes, it can be.