Supreme Court’s Decision on Taking Private Property for Public Good: What You Need to Know

A nine-judge bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud made observations regarding the consideration of privately-owned resources as “material resources of the community”. This examination was prompted by submissions from parties such as the Property Owners Association (POA) of Mumbai, which passionately argued that private properties cannot be taken over by state authorities under constitutional schemes of Articles 39 (b) and 31 C of the Constitution. The bench is addressing the legal question of whether private properties can be classified as “material resources of the community” under Article 39 (b) of the Constitution, which is part of the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP).

Members of the bench expressed concerns about the implications of solely categorizing ‘material resources of the community’ as public resources and emphasized the potential dangers in doing so, particularly with regard to privately held assets such as mines and forests. Referring to social and historical contexts from the era of the Constitution’s creation, the bench highlighted that the Constitution was designed to bring about social transformation and that Article 39 (b) should not be discounted simply because a property is privately held. The bench also questioned whether Maharashtra law, empowering authorities to take over dilapidated buildings, was valid and separate from the issue under consideration.

The Chief Justice referred to the historical abolition of ‘Zamindari’ and different perspectives on property ownership, emphasizing the need for social welfare measures and redistribution of wealth. The bench discussed the concept of property in relation to Gandhian ethos and the idea of holding property in trust for future generations. The bench also commented on the need to not automatically redistribute private properties, raising the example of nationalizing private assets.

The issue pertaining to Article 31 C, which grants immunity to laws meant to protect DPSP, was brought up and opposed by the Solicitor General. The arguments were left unresolved and were set to continue on Thursday. Article 39 (b) obligates the State to create policies aiming to fairly distribute the ownership and control of material resources for the common good.

The bench heard a total of 16 petitions, with the lead petition from the POA referred to a larger nine-judge bench after being previously deferred to smaller benches.