NEW DELHI: Amid a growing debate on redistribution of wealth, solicitor general Tushar Mehta told
Supreme Court
on Tuesday that these were “rustic and juvenile” methods to achieve egalitarianism.
Outlining that Article 39(b) of the Constitution envisaged distribution of material resources of the community to subserve the common good, Mehta told a nine-judge bench led by CJI D Y Chandrachud, “It would be a rustic and juvenile method to propose computing the nation’s wealth by totalling the wealth of every citizen and then distributing it equally among a particular section.
Such ideas reflect a lack of understanding of
economic development
, governance, social welfare and the nation.”
Mehta said if a plot of land belonged to an individual and it was needed for construction of a road to subserve the common good of residents of a large area, then that privately-owned land would be classified as material resource to be utilised for greater good of the community. “Article 39(b) based legislation is not meant to take away properties owned by people of a particular community, race or caste for distribution among another class of citizens,” he said.
The bench comprising CJI Chandrachud and Justices Hrishikesh Roy, B V Nagarathna, S Dhulia, J B Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, R Bindal, S C Sharma and A G Masih seemed to concur. “It would be rather extreme to interpret Article 39(b) to include privately-owned property as material resources of the community,” the bench said.
“The dynamics of economic development have changed from socialist pattern to a free market economy since the 1990s and now private investments hold the key. If we want to have a productive economy, then private investment must be encouraged. In the 1950s, no one had envisaged that electricity would be distributed by private parties. In the present scenario, it would be extremely unfair to argue that community resources include all private properties,” it added.
CJI Chandrachud said when the constitutional court interprets a key provision like Article 39(b) in Directive Principles of State Policy of the Constitution, it must ensure that the interpretation “sends a clear message of what India is and what it aspires to be”.
“It is difficult to outrightly categorise all private properties as material resources of the community. But at the same time, we cannot say that material resources can never include any private property,” he said, indicating that a balance needs to be struck between the two extreme views — socialist and capitalist — in the context of India’s development.
Mehta said Article 39(b) was a measure for developing a welfare state with the goal of achieving common good, where material resources of the community need legislative intervention to be either taken over or controlled for distribution. He said the govt did not advocate either extremes — that all assets of the country vested in the nation or community, or that no private property could ever be categorised as community resources. “It depends on the context of time and purpose,” he said.
After hearing Mehta, the bench said, “Your arguments appear to contradict that of attorney general R Venkataramani who had argued that community resources would include private properties.” Mehta said he had nuanced the legal proposition differently. Arguments will conclude on Wednesday.
