Supreme Court Ruling on Taking Over Private Property for Common Good

The observations were made by a nine-judge bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud. They were examining whether privately-owned resources could be considered “material resources of the community”.

This was when the counsel for parties including the Property Owners Association (POA) of Mumbai made vehement submissions that private properties cannot be taken over by state authorities under the garb of constitutional schemes of Articles 39 (b) and 31 C of the Constitution. The bench is considering the vexed legal question arising from the petitions.

These petitions question whether private properties can be considered “material resources of the community” under Article 39 (b) of the Constitution. Article 39 (b) is part of the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP).

The bench raised concerns and discussions on the interpretation of “material resources of the community”. They highlighted the need for social transformation and redistribution of wealth as well as the historical context of the Constitution.

The bench also discussed the socialist concept of property and its relationship with the Gandhian ethos. The bench also emphasized the notion of property being held in trust for the future generations and the wider community.

They pointed out that Article 39 (b) was crafted to bring about social transformation and stressed that private property does not necessarily exempt it from the principles outlined in Article 39 (b). The bench noted that they would also deal with the issue pertaining to Article 31 C, which grants immunity to laws meant to protect DPSP.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opposed this observation, stating that it was not referred to. However, he offered to assist the bench on this issue.

The arguments remained inconclusive and were scheduled to resume on Thursday. The lead plea was filed by POA in 1992 and has been referred to larger benches before being taken up by the nine-judge bench.