RC Cooper vs Union of India
1970 AIR 564
Case Summary
[Right to Property]
[Fundamental Rights]
Facts
R.C. Cooper, a shareholder in a privately-owned bank, challenged the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1969, under which the government nationalized major banks. Cooper argued that the act violated his right to property, as it deprived shareholders of their property without fair compensation.
Issues
1. Does the right to property under Article 31 protect shareholders from government acquisition of assets?
2. Can Fundamental Rights, particularly Articles 19 and 31, be read together when assessing constitutional validity?
Relevant Legal Provisions
Article 19(1)(f): Right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property (later repealed).
Article 31: Compulsory acquisition of property (later repealed).
Judgment
The Supreme Court ruled in favour of Cooper, holding that the nationalization of banks violated shareholders’ Fundamental Rights. The Court established that Fundamental Rights must be read as interconnected and not in isolation, meaning that Articles 19 and 31 could be jointly considered when determining the validity of legislation affecting property rights. This decision paved the way for a broader interpretation of Fundamental Rights and significantly impacted property rights until the 44th Amendment in 1978, which removed the right to property as a Fundamental Right.
Rishita Vanjani
2nd year
Amity University Rajasthan
Comments