A nine-judge bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, issued the remarks, examining whether privately-owned resources can be considered "material resources of the community. The discussion came up during arguments put forth by different parties, which includes the Property Owners Association (POA) of Mumbai, who spoke strongly that state authorities cannot usurp private properties under the garb of constitutional schemes of Articles 39 (b) and 31 C of the Constitution.
Chief Justice of India said, "You must understand that Article 39 (b) has been crafted in a certain way in the Constitution because the Constitution was intended to bring about a social transformation. We shouldn't therefore go that far to say that the moment private property is private property, Article 39 (b) will have no application."
The Supreme Court (SC) stated on April 24 that the Constitution wants to bring about a "sense of social transformation" and it would be "dangerous" to assert that an individual's private property cannot be seen as a resource for the community and taken over by state authorities for the purpose of serving the "common good."
The bench is deliberating on a complex legal issue arising from the petitions on whether private properties can be considered "material resources of the community" under Article 39 (b) of the Constitution, a component of the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP).
"It may be a little extreme to suggest that 'material resources of the community' only means public resources and we do not have their origin in the private property of an individual. I will tell you why it would be dangerous to take that view. Take simple things like mines and even private forests. For instance, for us to say that the governmental policy will not apply to the private forests under Article 39 (b)... therefore keep the hands off. It will be extremely dangerous as a proposition," said the bench which also comprised justices Hrishikesh Roy, B V Nagarathna, Sudhanshu Dhulia, J B Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, Satish Chandra Sharma and Augustine George Masih.
"The Constitution was intended to bring about social transformation and we cannot say that Article 39 (b) has no application once the property is privately held,” says the bench, indicating social and other prevalent situations in the 1950s when the Constitution was made. The bench clarified that the validity of the Maharashtra law, empowering authorities to take over dilapidated buildings, was valid or not was a completely separate issue and would be decided independently.
The bench questioned whether it can be argued that Article 39(b) has no relevance once properties are privately owned because society demands welfare measures and there was a need for redistribution of wealth as well. The Chief Justice referred to the abolition of 'Zamindari' and the purely capitalist concept of property, adding that it indicates an "exclusive" sense of ownership.
Further, the CJI adds, “The socialist concept of property is the mirror image which attributes to property, a notion of commonality. Nothing is exclusive to the individual. All property is common to the community. That's the extreme socialist view.” He added that the DPSPs have their roots in the Gandhian ethos.
"And what is that ethos? Our ethos regards property as something that we hold in trust. We don't go as far as to adopt the socialistic model that there is no private property. But, you know, our concept of property has undergone a very different, very subtle change from either the extreme capitalist perspective or the extreme socialist perspective,” says CJI. He said that we consider property as something held in trust.
We hold the property for the succeeding generations in the family, but broadly, we also hold that property in trust for the wider community. That's the whole concept of sustainable development. That property which we have today, as today's generation, we hold in trust for the future of our society. That's what you call an inter-generational equity,” the bench says.
