How Indians rank their rights: what 26 interviews tell us about Article 19 and property

by Prashant Narang.

Citizens treat property as the material anchor that makes other freedoms meaningful; livelihood-enabling freedoms are prioritised, while free speech is cherished but policed asymmetrically.

In 1978, the Forty-Fourth Amendment removed the right to property from the Constitution's catalogue of fundamental rights. Lawyers and economists have debated the implications ever since. But do ordinary citizens internalise that demotion? This post introduces our Socio-Legal Review note - co-authored by Sehar Abdullah, Keerthana Satheesh, and Prashant Narang- which steps outside the courtroom to ask a simple question with big policy consequences: which rights do people treat as most important in their daily lives - and why? Drawing on 26 in-depth interviews across professions that are especially sensitive to rights restrictions (journalists, migrants, MSME owners, cab drivers, farmers, artists, street performers and more), we map how citizens rank the Article 19(1) freedoms alongside the right to property. The top-line finding: people continue to see property as foundational - often the precondition that makes other freedoms meaningful.

What we did

We used purposive and snowball sampling to reach respondents aged 19-65 whose livelihoods could be directly affected by limits on speech, association, movement, residence, profession, or on property. Most interviews were conducted in Delhi, with additional remote interviews in Kerala, Chennai, and Bengaluru. We piloted the instrument, then ran a three-part interview: background and demographics; general views on freedoms and "reasonable restrictions"; and case studies with graded constraints (for example, permits and bans; "public order" versus epidemic) to elicit trade-offs. Transcripts were thematically coded. This is qualitative research; insights are directional, not population estimates.

What we heard: the lived hierarchy

• Property as cornerstone - Across backgrounds, respondents described property as livelihood, security, and autonomy "a means to earn a living", as one farmer put it. People resisted permissions on buying and selling land and were most animated by compulsory acquisition scenarios. Support for acquisition often hinged on compensation: market-linked and predictable when the purpose was clearly public (for example, a metro), with sharper bargaining when it looked commercial (for example, a mall). The underlying intuition is economic: when property underwrites household security, the perceived risk of under-compensation looms large.
• Economic freedom as a gateway - Freedoms that enable livelihood - movement and residence for migrants (Article 19(1)(d) and (e)) and choice of occupation (Article 19(1)(g))- were consistently prioritised. A photojournalist linked movement directly to earning; an activist framed profession and property as part of a single "socio-economic" relationship that the state should ease rather than police. This fits a law-and-economics intuition: secure property and open markets reduce dependence and expand feasible choices, which then support speech and association.
• The free-speech asymmetry - Respondents valorised free expression for themselves - journalism as "the fourth pillar", bans as "the end of democracy" - but many were readier to restrict others, often using elastic notions of "harm" or "extremism". In short: pro-speech for me, pro-restriction for you. That asymmetry is a legitimacy warning: broad, vague grounds for curbing speech match the public's weakest intuitions and risk becoming catch-alls.
• Residence as identity - The right to reside and settle anywhere (Article 19(1)(e)) surfaced as a surprising anchor of national belonging. Several interviewees described the ability to live anywhere as central to Indian diversity - inking mobility to both opportunity and citizenship.

Why this matters for policy design

• Compensation design - Where acquisition feels commercial, citizens bargain harder and distrust adequacy; where purpose is plainly public, opposition is more about predictability than principle. Legislatures and agencies should therefore tighten "public purpose" definitions and commit to clear, market-linked compensation formulas (benchmarks, indexation, relocation assistance) and process timelines that reduce uncertainty rents and litigation.
• Targeted deregulation for livelihood rights -Frictions on movement, residence, and small-enterprise activity (permits, zoning that criminalises street vending, opaque lease and tenancy formalities) bite hardest on those who use these rights to earn. Policy wins lie in simplifying titles and transfers, digitising and time-bounding consents, rationalising vending, parking, and market rules, and reducing compliance steps for micro-businesses - exactly where our respondents located day-to-day pain points.
• Speech rules that travel well - The asymmetry we observed - tolerant for self, restrictive for others - suggests two drafting heuristics: (i) avoid vague grounds like "offence" without a tight harm standard, and (ii) pair restrictions with necessity-and-proportionality tests that officials must evidence ex ante. Narrow tailoring not only protects rights but also matches citizens' strongest defence of speech (for themselves) while tempering expansive instincts to curb others.

What this does not claim

This is a qualitative, urban-skewed sample. We do not estimate a numeric hierarchy or claim causal links between income and preferences. Our aim is to surface design hypotheses and legitimacy risks that can be tested at scale and used now for better drafting and implementation. Rural and longitudinal work are obvious next steps.

The big picture

Constitutional amendments can change a right's formal rank without changing its everyday salience. In our interviews, property remains the backbone of autonomy and a hedge against shocks; livelihood-enabling freedoms are the everyday workhorses; and speech is cherished but policed asymmetrically. For policymakers and drafters, the take-away is practical: align legal categories and procedures with how citizens actually use and trade off rights. That means predictable compensation and acquisition processes; frictions-down reforms for movement, residence, and micro-enterprise; and narrowly tailored, evidence-based limits on expression. This is the path to a constitutional order that people recognise in their daily choices - not just in the statute book.

Read the paper

Rights in the Eyes of the Beholder: The Lived Hierarchy of Rights in India's Democracy - Socio-Legal Review, 21(1), 2025. Authors: Sehar Abdullah, Keerthana Satheesh, and Prashant Narang.

Prashant Narang is a researcher at TrustBridge Rule of Law Foundation.