Supreme Court Doubts Argument That Private Property Isn't Included In 'Material Resources Of Community' As Per Article 39(b) [Day 2]

A 9-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on Wednesday (April 24) continued the hearing of the issue whether 'material resources of the community' includes privately owned resources in its ambit under Article 39(b) of the Constitution. Carrying forward from the previous day's discussion on Justice Krishna Iyer's minority decision in State of Karnataka v. Ranganatha Reddy & Anr., wherein Justice Krishna Iyer held privately owned property to be a part of 'Material resources of the community' under Article 39(b), Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud analyzed the judgement from the lens of Gandhian ethos. The Court also dissected the conundrum posed by the decision in Minerva Mills which struck down the amended version of Article 31C, leaving the bench to wonder if that would lead to the revival of the unamended version before the coming of the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976. The CJI explained that the minority decision strived to balance the economic needs of the society, which are furthered in the form of Directive Principles (DPSPs) in the Constitution. Article 39(b) being one of the DPSPs reflects the Gandhian Principles which take a middle group as opposed to the two extremes of capitalism and socialism of the political theory spectrum. On one hand, Capitalism propagates individual ownership of resources, while on the other hand, Socialism doesn't recognize private property and asserts all property to be owned only by the community. However, in India, the philosophy of property is governed by the Gandhian ethos which regards property to be held in trust. One doesn't just hold the property for future generations but also the environment and in turn contribute to the cause of sustainable development and intergenerational equity. “Our DPSPs are in pursuance of the Gandhian ethos and ideology. What is that ethos? Our ethos regards property that is held in trust. We don't go as far as to adopt a socialistic model that there is no private property at all, of course, there is private property, and that concept of trust which is now being applied in the context of sustainable development in the environmental context ……Our concept of property has undergone a very different, very subtle change - from either the extreme capitalist perspective or the extreme socialist perspective. We regard property as something we hold in trust. We hold a property in trust for the succeeding generations in the family but broadly we also hold the property in trust for the wider community, that's the whole concept of sustainable development- that's what we call intergenerational equity” When it comes to the interpretation given to Article 39(b), CJI posited that Justice Krishna Iyer and Justice Reddy (who concurred with the minority decision) dwell deep into two main points: where property comes from, and who benefits from it. They argue that even if something didn't originally belong to the community, if it benefits the community, like natural resources, it can be considered under this law. If in the event the government takes control of property, through nationalisation, and uses it for the community's benefit, it fits within Article 39(b). The broader vision is that it's not about handing out property to individuals; it's about using it in a way that helps everyone. “Both Justice Krishna Iyer and Justice Reddy deal with 2 aspects of Article 39(b) - (1) the origin and (2) the beneficiary....if something doesn't originate in the community, then 39(b) cannot apply. (2) The distribution postulates the distribution to individuals. If you are not distributing it to individuals, then 39(b) will not apply. They deal with both these arguments at the philosophical level by saying that even if something that does not originate in the community, if it is a property of nature that bearing on the community 39b is capable of application. (2) On distribution, they say that even if it is not being distributed to individuals - supposing nationalisation, you take over the property, and vest it in a state corporation, this is not a distribution to an individual. That concept is also within the purview of 39b , because why were you nationalising, you were taking over the private property but using in trust for the wider society but it's not being given or distributed.” Article 39(b) To Be Seen From The Lens Of 'Social Transformation' Goal Of Constitution The CJI, suggesting to be disinclined to completely accept the view of the appellants that private resources are excluded from 'Material Resources of the Community', expressed that the provision has to be seen in the context of the larger goal of social transformation as envisaged by the framers of the Constitution. Excluding private property from being a community resource would be an extreme and dangerous interpretation of Article 39(b). The CJI illustrated this by giving the example of a private forest. Even though private, the forest constitutes a vital resource for the community. “It will...

Supreme Court Doubts Argument That Private Property Isn't Included In 'Material Resources Of Community' As Per Article 39(b) [Day 2]

Anmol Kaur Bawa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Anmol Kaur Bawa

Supreme Court Doubts Argument That Private Property Isn't Included In 'Material Resources Of Community' As Per Article 39(b) [Day 2]

Anmol Kaur Bawa

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Anmol Kaur Bawa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers