NEW DELHI: West Bengal on Wednesday walked the path taken by Union and Maharashtra govts to argue before a nine-judge
Supreme Court
bench that Article 39(b) of the Constitution should be interpreted to mean that material resources of the community would in certain circumstances include privately owned property to subserve the common good.
Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the Trinamool Congress govt, argued before a bench of CJI D Y Chandrachud and Justices Hrishikesh Roy, B V Nagarathna, S Dhulia, J B Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, R Bindal, S C Sharma and AG Masih that under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, with its amendment, the state acquired vast tracts of privately held agricultural land and distributed it among landless farmers to ensure the mandate of the directive principles for distribution of material resources of the community to best subserve the common good.
“The distribution may be piecemeal or kept in the control of a govt agency or even a private agency, so long as the benefits percolate through to the people as a common good. To illustrate, large privately owned ponds extending up to 500 acres can be acquired and put in control of a govt agency or a cooperative society so that the pond is preserved so as to subserve the common good,” Dwivedi argued.
“Once the property is acquired, it indisputably becomes a material resource of the community. Upon acquisition, the private property vests in the state. All state property would be a material resource of the community, and upon acquisition, it must be distributed so as to subserve the common good,” he added.
The state’s second counsel, Gopal Shankaranarayanan, argued in the same vein but suddenly changed tack to ruffle feathers by questioning the validity of SC’s five-judge bench judgment, which by three to two majority had last year declined to grant legal status to same-sex marriages.
He said the constitutional court, having been convinced about discrimination faced by LGBTQIA+ community, should have moulded relief under Article 14 (right to equality). He said the majority judgment was ‘per incuriam’ as it did not heed the settled principle that in the face of discrimination, relief should be provided. He went on to argue that the same-sex marriage issue needed to be referred to a larger bench of seven judges.
This drew objection from solicitor general Tushar Mehta who said this issue was unrelated to the interpretation of Article 39(b) engaging the attention of the nine-judge bench.
