The Supreme Court reaffirmed on September 25, 2026 that Article 300A of the Constitution is not merely a statutory right but a constitutional guarantee against deprivation of property without authority of law. The Court held that any state action dispossessing a person of property must satisfy the triple test: backed by law, serve a public purpose, and pay just compensation. Absence of any one element renders the deprivation unconstitutional, regardless of the state's claimed justification.

Article 300A, inserted by the 44th Constitutional Amendment in 1978, removed the right to property from Part III (Fundamental Rights) but preserved it as a constitutional right under Part XII. This shift is doctrinally critical: it means property cannot be protected through Article 32 writs directly, but the right survives against arbitrary executive action.

The Supreme Court in Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981) and later in K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (2011) clarified that Art 300A imposes a positive obligation on the state — deprivation must be 'by authority of law,' meaning a valid law must exist, it must serve public purpose, and compensation must be adequate and just. The 2026 ruling tightens this into an explicit three-pronged test.

The distinction from Art 19(1)(f) (repealed) matters: the old right was a fundamental right enforceable under Art 32; Art 300A is enforceable only under Art 226 (High Court writ jurisdiction). However, if deprivation also violates Art 21 (life and personal liberty), it can attract Art 32 jurisdiction — a nuance CLAT PG frequently tests.

The phrase 'authority of law' under Art 300A has been interpreted to mean a valid enacted law, not mere executive order or administrative direction. This is the core principle the Court restated in 2026, reinforcing that even welfare states cannot dispossess citizens through executive fiat alone.