Supreme Court Order: Government Can’t Take Over Private Property. Not all private properties are falling within the phrase “material resources of the community” under Article 39 (b) of the Constitution intended to be requisitioned by the State in favor of the “common good”, holds a nine judge Constitution Bench presided by CJI DY Chandrachud in the Supreme Court of India.
The majority verdict by the CJI of Supreme Court (for himself and six other judges) however said some private properties may come under Article 39(b) provided they are “material” and belong to the community and the Government can requisition such private property and for larger “public good”.
To decide if a particular private resource was a “material resource,” the court must find out if its distribution will subserve “common good”, the Chief Justice of India in the Supreme Court said while pronouncing the verdict.
In this Judgement from Supreme Court whether a resource falls within the ambit of “material resource of community” must depend on the nature of the resource in question, its characteristic, its impact on well-being of the community, the scarcity of the resource, and the consequence of having such a resource concentrated in the hands of private players,” said the CJI, adding that the public trust doctrine can also be invoked to decide it.
Apart from CJI Chandrachud, other judges who sat on the Bench in Supreme Court including Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice BV Nagarathna, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice JB Pardiwala, Justice Manoj Misra, Justice Rajesh Bindal, Justice SC Sharma and Justice AG Masih. The Bench had reserved its verdict on the contentious issue on May 1.
Supreme Court Order
There were three judgments on the contentious issue — one each authored by CJI Chandrachud for himself and six other judges, Justice Nagarathna (partially concurring) and Justice Dhulia (dissenting).
The Bench held, with a unanimous voice, that Article 31C of the Constitution — that protected laws giving effect to certain directive principles — continued in force to the extent that it was upheld in the Kesavanda Bharati case in 1973.
On this, the Chief Justice in the Supreme Court observed, “Does material resource of a community used in 39B include privately owned resources? Theoretically, the answer is yes, the phrase may include privately owned resources. However, this court is unable to subscribe itself to the minority view of Justice Iyer in Ranganath Reddy. We hold that not every resource owned by an individual can be considered a material resource of a community only because it meets the qualifier of material needs.”
“The enquiry regarding the resource in question falls under 39B must be contest-specific and subject to a non-exhaustive list of factors such as the nature of the resource, the characteristics, the impact of the resource on well-being of the community, the scarcity of resource and the consequences of such a resource being concentrated in the hands of private players, the public trust doctrine evolved by this court may also help to identify resources which fall under the ambit of material resource of a community,” he said.
Supreme Court goes back to the 1977 judgement
In 1977, a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court had held by a majority of 4:3 that all private property was not included within the expression “material resources of the community”. However, Justice Krishna Iyer in the minority held that both public and private resources came within the purview of the expression “material resources of the community” under Article 39(b).
In her separate judgment, Justice Nagarathna differed with the Chief Justice on his observations about the judgment delivered by Justice Iyer.
“Justice Krishna Iyer adjudicated on the material resources of a community in the backdrop of a constitutional and economic structure which gave primacy to the State in a broad sweeping manner. As a matter of fact, the 42nd amendment had included socialist in the Constitution. Can we castigate former judges and allege them with disservice only because of reaching a different interpretative outcome?”
In the run up to the 2024 Lok Sabha polls, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi had talked about growing inequality and the need for wealth redistribution. “First, we will conduct a caste census to know the exact population and status of backward castes, SCs, STs, minorities and other castes. After that, the financial and institutional survey will begin.”. That great historic task the leader took to distribute the wealth of India, jobs and welfare measures among the people according to their population,” he has said while addressing a meeting at a rally in Hyderabad.
Whether private properties could fall within the term “material resources of the community” under Article 39(b) of the Constitution so that they would become an area of nationalization as part of furthering the common good was to be determined by this nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India.
Article 39(b) in the Directive Principles of State Policy says that “the State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good”.
The controversy also revolved around interpretation of Article 39(c) which states “the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment”.
While dealing with nationalization of state road transport services, the Supreme Court of India had in the State Of Karnataka And Another Etc versus Shri Ranganatha Reddy & Another (1978) presented two opinions. The minority view taken by Justice VR Krishna Iyer was that material resources of the community would include both natural and man-made, publicly and privately owned resources. The other view articulated by Justice NL Untwalia was that the majority of the judges did not subscribe to the view taken in respect of Article 39(b) by Justice Iyer.
The matter was referred to the nine-judge Bench as Justice Iyer’s minority view stood affirmed in 1982 in Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd and another. A verdict further affirmed this. This took place in 1996 in the matter of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India.
On Tuesday, the majority judgment by CJI Chandrachud held that the phrase “material resources of the community” may theoretically include privately owned resources, however, the expansive view expressed by Justice Krishna Iyer’s minority verdict in Ranganath Reddy (1978) and relied on by Justice Chinnappa Reddy in Sanjeev Coke can’t be accepted.
“It is a matter of concern as to judicial brethren of posterity view the judges of the brethren of past. possibly by losing sight of time when the latter discharged duty and socio-economic policies pursued by the state. merely after liberalisation, paradigm shift after 1991 reforms, it cannot lead to branding the judges of this court of yesteryears as to doing disservice to the Constitution.
At the outset I may say that such observations emanating from this court and calling that they were not true to their oath of office. but just by having a paradigm shift in economic policies. judges of posterity should not follow the practice. I do not concur with the opinion of the Chief Justice in this regard,” she said.
For more updates, follow: https://thenewzzy.com/
