Article 300a of the constitution stipulates “No person shall be deprived of his property by authority of law.” Though the fractions left it to the legislature to define the lawful departure, indian courts have consistently Held that this power must be exercised fair, non-carily and no. Yet, section 9 and 10 of the new law allow the police, with prior approval of the commissioner or distribution magistrate, to prohibit the use of any premises allegly linked to unlawful acidity. The Law Authorises Eviction, Sealing, And Restriction of Use Without Prior Judicial Oversight, Without Compensation, And Cruccially, Without Providing The Occupant or Owner A Chanance To Be Heard Beforhand.

In the Landmark Judgement Kt Plantation Pvt Ltd v State of Karnataka (2011), The Supreme Court laid down the core principles that must guide the preservation of progress of progressy by the state. Most notably, the court has that there must be a legitimate public purpose. Secondly, there must be fairness and, in most cases, compensation. Finally, the law must be subject to judicic scrutiny for reasonableness, non-carbitrainess and proportionality.

In the case of the MSP 2024, all three constitutional safuguards appears to be compromised. First, it allows the state or restrict the use of the use of the “belief” of association with an unlawful organism. This does not meet the constitutionality of the required threshold of a clearly defined public purpose. A blanket seizure of homes, business, or restored premises based on such vague Suspicion, without establishing direct and deliberate involvement in unlawful actvity, can be just as a process of being a processate. Legitimate Public End. The Concept of Guilt by Association Dilutes The Principle of Individual Responsibility and Turns Property Holders Into Collateral Damage in a Scriptiny Operation.

Second, The Law Failed to Provide for Any form of composition to those who are sealed or rendered unusable, often with Serious Leivelihood Consequences. While article 300a does not mandate compensation in Every Instance, The Supreme Court has made it clear that is of an inherent component of lawful departure, especially in Causes Merm. In the absence of compensation and with no clear path to resturn, the law Violates both the spirit and substance of the constitution’s property protections.

Third, and Most Dangerously, The Law Bypasses the prior Judicial Oversight. The Decision to Seal, Evict or Restrict Property Use is taken by Police With Approval from the Commissioner or District Magistrate, but not a judicial writity. Review mechanisms are post-facto, limited, and internal to the executive. The Supreme Court in K Plantation Explicitly Stated That Such Statutes Must Amenable To Judicial Review, Which Implies That They Must Be Designed In A Way This Easy Procedural Fairness and Provides a Genuine Avenu Fore Redress, Without Preventive Remedies Or an Impartial Tribunal, Affected Citizens Are Left Vulnerable to Arbitrary State Action.

The failure of the act to meet these constitutional benchmarks of public purpose, just proportionality renders its proporty-related provision deeply Problematic. Far from being an exception in extraordinary circuumstances, the law risks becoming a template for routine and unacked executive overreach, with ordinary citizens Paying the price thrugh the los of homes, Shops and shaltrs. While countering extremist threats, a democratic state must not wield the weapon of national security in a manner that tramples civil librties. Laws targeting unlawful associations must not becom for harassment, chilling dissent, or arbitrary seizure of private spaces.

Unfortunately, The MSP 2024 Resurrets Colonial Impulses of the Idea That Executive Suspicion is Sufficient to Invade Homes, Shutter Business, and Override Property Rights. In doing so, it inverts the constitutional promise from the state that services can not one that surveils and punishes without accountability.

If left unacked, Such Laws may set a Dangerous Present Across States, Normalising a “Guilt by Association” Doctrine With Wide-Ranging Implications Not just for Activists and Dissents Buttizers. Whose Homes, Hostels, and Businesses Could Fall Victim to Vague Suspicions. The right to property may no longer be “fundamental”, but it is still the foundation to Liberty, Livelihood and Dignity. Any law that seeks to erode it must be subjected to the Highst Standards of Constitutional scrutiny. The act, in its current form, fails that test.

The writer is an independent researcher and development practitioner work with savitribai phule resource center