Supreme Court Rules on Authority to Seize Private Property for Public Benefit

A nine-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, recently considered whether privately-owned resources can be deemed “material resources of the community.” This arose from submissions made by parties including the Property Owners Association of Mumbai, arguing that private properties cannot be taken over by state authorities under constitutional schemes. The bench is exploring the legal question related to whether private properties can be considered “material resources of the community” under Article 39 (b) of the Constitution, which falls under the Directive Principles of State Policy.

The judges expressed concern about the proposition that “material resources of the community” only refer to public resources, highlighting the potential danger of this view. The bench emphasized the need to consider the application of Article 39 (b) to privately held properties, citing the societal demand for welfare measures and wealth redistribution. It also discussed the historical context of the Constitution and emphasized the intended social transformation brought about by its provisions.

The judges discussed the contrasting perspectives on property from a socialist and capitalist viewpoint, emphasizing the concept of property as a trust for future generations and the wider community. They stressed the idea of sustainable development and inter-generational equity in relation to private properties. The bench also addressed the issue of Article 31 C, which grants immunity to laws meant to protect the Directive Principles of State Policy, despite opposition from the Solicitor General.

The arguments regarding these complex legal issues remained inconclusive and were scheduled to continue. In total, 16 petitions, including one filed by the Property Owners Association of Mumbai, were heard by the bench, reflecting the lengthy and complex nature of the legal proceedings.