May 01, 2024 06:50 AM IST
A bench of the Supreme Court deciding on whether private property can be distributed for public good by the state said an “unbridled” agenda of socialism that treats all private property of individuals to be belonging to the community cannot be envisaged in today’s context of India
A nine-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court deciding a crucial issue on whether private property can be distributed for public good by the state said an “unbridled” agenda of socialism that treats all private property of individuals to be belonging to the community cannot be envisaged in today’s context of India’s economic development as private ownership and business enjoyed protection under the Constitution.
Taking a nuanced approach to decide whether material resources of community, as occurring in Article 39(b), one of the directive principles of state policy under the Constitution, includes private property, the bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud said, “What we write today will send a message of what India is and what India aspires to be…We don’t want to dilute the constitutional and social significance of Article 39(b). But at the same time, we should not be sending a message by interpreting Article 39(b) in such a wide sense that there is no protection of private rights in society at all.”
HT launches Crick-it, a one stop destination to catch Cricket, anytime, anywhere. Explore now!
The bench was hearing a challenge to a Maharashtra law introduced in 1986 under Chapter VIIIA of Maharashtra Housing and Area Development (MHAD) Act, which allowed the state to take control over dilapidated buildings in Mumbai by relying on Article 39(b).
Distancing from the view adopted by attorney general R Venkataramani appearing for MHAD Authority that held all private authority to be material resource of the community, the bench said while certain private resources can be so, an extreme view of all private property belonging to community cannot be accepted.
In stating so, Venkataramani had echoed the minority view of justice VR Krishna Iyer in the 1977 Ranganath Reddy case, where he held that under Article 39, material resources of the community will include private property as individuals belong to the community.
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for Maharashtra government on Tuesday, said: “I would personally and on behalf of the government would not subscribe to the view of justice Krishna Iyer at this stage of country’s development.”
The bench, also comprising justices Hrishikesh Roy, BV Nagarathna, Sudhanshu Dhulia, JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, SC Sharma and Augustine George Masih, explained the need for taking a balanced approach in matters of private property as there cannot be a strict dichotomy between what constitutes private and public property.
“We cannot attribute to Article 39(b) and (c) a sort of definition in today’s times which gives an unbridled agenda of communism and socialsm. That is not our Constitution today…We must adopt an interpretation with the changing nature of times. We are not interpreting the Constitution of India of 1950,” the chief justice said. “We must have an enduring interpretation. It may well be that certain resources which are vested in private individual may still have some general bearing of public interest or welfare of broader community which requires regulation by state.”
Other judges pitched in with their thoughts, with justice Roy stating what is common good may be relevant to determine for the 9-judge bench. Justice Nagarathna questioned how ownership of community encompasses private ownership and said the question arising in these proceedings related to “whether community means individual.” Justice Dhulia, noting the variance in the stands taken by the law officers and said: “It will ultimately depend on what is the context for determining whether a resource is material to the community.”
“Our interpretation of Article 39(b) must be nuanced to take care of what India is today and what India is moving towards tomorrow,” the chief justice said. “We have now expressly adopted a policy of encouraging investment by private sector. If we have to have a productive enterprise, we must encourage private investment.”
