Justice Krishna Iyer's View On Private Property 'Little Extreme'; Can't Adopt Unbridled Communist Or Socialist Agenda To Define Article 39(b): Supreme Court [Day 4]

The Supreme Court Constitution bench, on its 4th day of hearing the issue of whether private resources form part of the 'material resource of the community' under Article 39(b) of the Constitution, analysed the present and changing economic dynamics of the nation in the background of increased globalisation and how the provision shold be interpreted keeping in mind the contemporary needs of the society. The definition of 'community' was argued to be seen from a contextual lens and various social and practical factors involving the nature and location of a resource. The Union also proposed to understand the post-Minerva Mills impact on Article 31C from the standpoint of Blackstone's Declatary Theory.The bench hearing the issue comprises Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices Hrishikesh Roy, B.V. Nagarathna, Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, Satish Chandra Sharma and Augustine George Masih.The CJI at the outset observed that Article 39(b) cannot be given an interpretation which is on the two extreme ends of a spectrum. Taking the example of how there could be private land but beneath it could be underlying precious minerals like uranium which is a material resource for the community at large, the CJI opined that the concept of material resources cannot be put in air-tight compartments of private and public.He further expressed that accepting Justice Krishna Iyer's decision in State of Karnataka v. Ranganatha Reddy & Anr. (1978) would be too extreme. Justice Krishna Iyer in his decision held that the expression 'Material Resources of the Community' included “all the private and public sources of meeting material needs, not merely public possessions.” “Therefore there cannot be a strict dichotomy between private and public. At the same time, the formulation by Justice Krishna Iyer is a little too extreme, what it says is since the community consists of individuals and therefore every individual is a part of the community, then the material resources of the community will also mean resources of the individual ....” With the changing socio-economic set-up of the Country's policies, especially in light of the increased effect of globalisation and open market economy across the world, CJI analyzed that giving Article 39(b) and(c) a "communist" or "socialist" colour would go against the presently evolved fabric of the Constitution. It is the duty of the court to balance both collective as well as individualistic interests. In terms of individualistic interests, one cannot overlook the concept of private property and the right to carry business, both of which are intrinsic in the Fundamental Rights “We cannot attribute to Article 39(b) and (c) at least in today's times a sort of a definition which gives an unbridled agenda of communism or socialism. That is not our constitution today, we still protect private property, and we still protect the right to carry on business.” Referring to India's decades of efforts towards liberalization of the economy and welcoming foreign investments for growth opportunities in India, the CJI opined that Article 39(b) cannot be interpreted in a way that is counterproductive to the Country's national and international trade and investment policies. He highlighted that the decision in the present case would have far-reaching impacts on the present and future economic dynamics of the Country and the court will need to be cautious of maintaining the balance between social and personal rights under the constitution. “We (India) have expressly adopted a policy of encouragement of investment by the private sector, realising that until then it was alright that governmentt was involved at high levels of investment in the industry, but now if we truly want to have a productive enterprise, we will have to encourage private investment. Therefore our interpretation also has to be nuanced of what India is today and what India is moving towards tomorrow….what we write will send a message of what India is what India aspires to be ...look we don't want to dilute the constitution and social significance of 39(b),(c). It is sent for us, it's given to us. At the same time, we should not be sending a message by interpreting 39(b) and (c) in such a wide sense that there is no protection of private rights in the society at all.” The Idea Of Community Is Contextual: Bench Brainstorms On the discussion of understanding what is meant by 'community', Justice Dhulia pointed out that it was necessary to understand community from a contextual sense. He gave the example of how there may be a tribal community knowing of a particular herb, which may be grown on a private farm or land, but the herb would belong to the entire 'community'. However, how does one determine what would constitute a community? “But will the community will only be that tribal community or will it be the people of the entire country ?” The CJI weighed in to add that he observed three aspects of the...

Justice Krishna Iyer's View On Private Property 'Little Extreme'; Can't Adopt Unbridled Communist Or Socialist Agenda To Define Article 39(b): Supreme Court [Day 4]

Anmol Kaur Bawa

The Court observed that the Constitution still protected private property.

Tags