In a landmark judgement delivered by a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India, headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud declared that not every property owned by an individual qualifies as a “community resource” under Article 39(b) of the Constitution.
The Constitution Bench headed by the CJI gave a majority verdict that the state government cannot acquire all private property, it can only acquire some properties. With this decision, the 9-judge bench has overturned the historic decision of the Supreme Court of 1978.
The Supreme Court has given this judgment in a case related to the scope of Article 39 (B) of the Constitution. This article deals with the power of the state over the acquisition and redistribution of private properties and property for ‘public good’.
The judgement issued on Tuesday was aimed at clarifying the extent to which private property can be considered a community resource, thereby striking a balance between individual property rights and community welfare.
46-year-old decision struck down
In this landmark judgement, the Supreme Court’s nine-judge bench struck down a five-decade-old judgment inspired by Indira Gandhi’s nationalisation programme. The old judgment, which allowed redistribution of private assets under a socialist ideology, now becomes irrelevant with the latest judgement. The court observed that the judgment contained quotes from thinkers like Karl Marx, and was based on a particular socio-economic viewpoint that has been rejected by democracy over time.
It may be noted that in 1977, a seven-judge bench had ruled by a 4:3 majority that not all privately owned property falls within the ambit of the material resources of the community. However, in a minority opinion, Justice Krishna Iyer held that both public and private resources fall within the ambit of the “material resources of the community” under Article 39(b). In his separate judgment, Justice Nagarathna disagreed with the Chief Justice on his observations on Justice Iyer’s judgment.
Article 39B of the Constitution says that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community should be distributed in such a way that the common good is fulfilled and common people can benefit.
What was Centre’s take?
During the hearing in the case the Union Government and the Maharashtra Government had specifically referred to a mindless and wholesale national redistribution of material resources of private citizens to be juvenile. They had also specifically relied upon the high ideals enumerated by the founding father of the Constitution, BR Ambedkar who believed that there must be economic democracy and the people must be free to choose things through their representatives.
The Union Government and the Maharashtra Government had highlighted the difference between a welfare state as opposed to the Robinhood-style economics championed by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi. The court appreciated this distinction and maintained the welfare state idea while ensuring that the progressive and efficient state interventions for socio-economic upliftment are not hindered. Interestingly, the Government of West Bengal also supported the arguments of the Union of India and Maharashtra.
Rahul Gandhi’s take on the issue
The said judgment is important as Congress leader Rahul Gandhi has been championing a juvenile idea of a lock, stock and barrel national wealth redistribution based on the ante dated philosophy completely ignorant of any economic principle.
It may be noted that while addressing an election rally in Telangana, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi referred to the party’s slogan ‘Jitni Aabadi Utna Haq’ and said that if the Congress comes to power, it will conduct a financial and institutional survey to find out who controls most of the country’s wealth. Rahul Gandhi said that for this, apart from a nationwide caste census, a wealth survey (survey of property distribution) will be conducted, this is our promise.
What Supreme Court said
In essence, the Court has held that while Article 39[b] envisages the distribution of material resources of the community for the common good it would be hazardous to assume that such provisions allow commuting the entire national wealth by totalling the wealth of every citizen and distributing it equally amongst a particular section. The Union Government and the Maharashtra Government had highlighted that such an idea reflects a lack of understanding of economic development governance, social welfare and national interest. The Court has accepted the approach put forth by the Union Government and the Maharashtra Government.
