Supreme Court Rules on Taking Private Property for the Common Good

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

This issue arose during the submissions made by the counsel for parties including the Property Owners Association (POA) of Mumbai. The POA vehemently argued that private properties cannot be taken over by state authorities under the guise of constitutional schemes of Articles 39 (b) and 31 C of the Constitution.

The bench is considering the legal question of whether private properties can be deemed “material resources of the community” under Article 39 (b) of the Constitution. This article is part of the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP).

The bench expressed concerns about the extreme nature of suggesting that ‘material resources of the community’ only refers to public resources and does not have its origin in the private property of an individual. The bench consisted of justices Hrishikesh Roy, B V Nagarathna, Sudhanshu Dhulia, J B Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, Satish Chandra Sharma and Augustine George Masih.

The bench referred to the social and prevalent situations in the 1950s when the Constitution was drafted. They emphasized that the Constitution was intended to bring about social transformation.

They also discussed the need for redistribution of wealth and welfare measures in society. The bench also noted that the application of Article 39 (b) to privately held properties was a separate issue to be decided independently.

The judges also explored the concept of property from different perspectives, including the socialist and capitalist viewpoints. They talked about the foundation of Directive Principles of State Policy in the Gandhian ethos and emphasized the concept of holding property in trust for the community and future generations.

The bench raised the issue of Article 31 C, which grants immunity to laws meant to protect DPSP. This observation was opposed by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who stated that it was not referred to.

He, however, expressed willingness to assist the bench on the matter. The arguments remained inconclusive and were scheduled to continue on Thursday.

The lead petition was filed by the Mumbai-based POA and is part of a larger set of 16 petitions. The lead plea was filed by POA in 1992 and was referred to a nine-judge bench on February 20, 2002.

*(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed. )*