What Happened
- The Rajasthan Assembly passed the Rajasthan Prohibition of Transfer of Immovable Property and Provision for Protection of Tenants from Eviction from Premises in Disturbed Areas Bill, 2026.
- The legislation, tabled on February 25, 2026, makes Rajasthan the second state — after Gujarat — to enact a law restricting property transfers in state-notified "disturbed areas."
- A District Collector can declare a locality as "disturbed" for up to three years based on factors including rioting, "improper clustering," or threats to public order. Any property transfer in such a zone without prior approval of a designated competent authority is deemed null and void.
- Civil society groups, the Congress, and rights organisations including PUCL have opposed the bill, calling it unconstitutional and a vehicle for enforcing residential segregation.
Static Topic Bridges
Constitutional Right to Property — Article 300A
Property rights in India underwent a fundamental transformation through the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1978, which removed the right to property from the list of Fundamental Rights and inserted Article 300A into a new chapter. Article 300A provides that "No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law." While this makes property a constitutional right rather than a fundamental right, it still requires a valid law to justify any deprivation. Crucially, a person cannot access the Supreme Court directly under Article 32 for a violation of Article 300A; they must approach a High Court under Article 226. Any law that effectively bars or conditions property transfers must meet the test of being a reasonable restriction backed by a legitimate state objective.
- 44th Amendment Act (1978): deleted Articles 19(1)(f) and 31; inserted Article 300A
- Property is now a constitutional right, not a fundamental right
- Judicial remedy: High Court (Article 226), not Supreme Court (Article 32)
- State can deprive property only by "authority of law" — arbitrary or capricious deprivation is still challengeable
Connection to this news: Critics argue that conditioning property transfers on government approval in "disturbed areas" effectively amounts to a state-imposed restriction on property rights under Article 300A, raising questions about whether the law meets the constitutional standard of a legitimate restriction.
Gujarat's Disturbed Areas Act — The Precedent
Gujarat enacted the Disturbed Areas (Special Courts) Act in 1991, making it the first state to formally regulate property transactions in areas prone to communal disturbance. The Gujarat law requires prior permission from the Collector before any immovable property can be transferred in notified "disturbed areas." Its stated purpose is to prevent distress sales or coercive transfers during communal tension. However, civil rights groups have consistently argued that in practice the law has contributed to residential segregation along communal lines, limiting the ability of minority community members to sell or buy property in certain localities.
- Gujarat Disturbed Areas Act: 1991 (first such state law in India)
- Requires Collector's permission for property transfers in notified zones
- Rajasthan Bill 2026: modelled on Gujarat; second state to enact similar legislation
- Both bills use vague criteria ("improper clustering," "demographic imbalance") criticised for subjective application
Connection to this news: Rajasthan's Bill is directly modelled on the Gujarat template, bringing the same policy debates about communal segregation and state power into a new political context.
Freedom of Residence and Non-Discrimination (Articles 19 and 15)
The Indian Constitution guarantees citizens the right to reside and settle in any part of India under Article 19(1)(e). While this right can be restricted on grounds of public order or national interest under Article 19(5), any restriction must be reasonable. Separately, Article 15 prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. Critics of the Rajasthan Bill argue that if the law is used to prevent members of a particular religious community from buying property in certain areas, it could violate both Article 19(1)(e) (freedom of settlement) and Article 15 (non-discrimination). The use of ambiguous criteria like "improper clustering" is seen as particularly susceptible to discriminatory application.
- Article 19(1)(e): right to reside and settle anywhere in India (citizen only)
- Article 19(5): state may impose reasonable restrictions in the public interest
- Article 15: prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth
- PUCL characterised the Bill as "manifestly unconstitutional" and a tool for "ghettoisation of minorities"
Connection to this news: The constitutional challenge to the Rajasthan Bill is likely to centre on whether the restrictions imposed satisfy the "reasonable restriction" test under Article 19(5) and whether they are applied in a manner that discriminates on communal lines in violation of Article 15.
Key Facts & Data
- Bill tabled: February 25, 2026; Rajasthan Assembly
- Full name: Rajasthan Prohibition of Transfer of Immovable Property and Provision for Protection of Tenants from Eviction from Premises in Disturbed Areas Bill, 2026
- Rajasthan is the second state (after Gujarat) to pass such legislation
- Gujarat Disturbed Areas (Special Courts) Act: enacted 1991
- Collector can declare area "disturbed" for up to 3 years; transfers without approval are null and void
- Criteria for declaring "disturbed": rioting, "improper clustering," threats to public order
- Opposition from: Congress, PUCL, and civil rights groups
- Article 300A (44th Amendment, 1978): property is a constitutional right, not a fundamental right
- Key constitutional concerns: Articles 19(1)(e), 15, and 300A