Every Private Property Not a Community Resource: SC

Syllabus: GS2/Polity and Governance

Context

• Recently, a nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India ruled that the State cannot take over private property solely under the pretext of serving the ‘common good’.

Nature of Private Property

• The concept of private property has been a cornerstone of legal and economic systems worldwide.
• Private property rights in India have evolved through various constitutional amendments and judicial interpretations. 
• Initially, the ‘right to property’ was a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31 of the Constitution.
• However, the 44th Amendment in 1978 relegated it to a constitutional right under Article 300A, allowing the state to acquire private property only through due process and with adequate compensation.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

• The majority opinion, led by the Chief Justice of India, found that Justice Krishna Iyer’s 1978 ruling, which suggested that all private properties could be considered community resources, is ‘unsustainable’.
• The court ruled that not all privately owned property could be considered ‘material resources of the community’ under Article 39(b) of the Directive Principles of State Policy, and this should be assessed on a case-by-case basis rather than through a blanket application.
• It overturned the 1978 judgement by Justice Krishna Iyer, which had a broader interpretation of Article 39(b).

Revisiting Article 39(b)

• The Supreme Court, in its recent ruling, clarifies that private property cannot be classified as ‘material resources of the community’ merely because it meets a certain social or economic criterion. 
• The majority opinion asserts that taking private assets in the name of the common good requires a more rigorous justification.

Dissenting Opinions: Justice Nagarathna’s Views

• ‘Material resources’ can in the first instance be divided into two basic categories, namely:

1. State owned resources which belong to the State which are essentially material resources of the community, held in public trust by the State; and 
2. Privately owned resources.

• However, the expression ‘material resources’ does not include ‘personal effects’ or ‘personal belonging’ of individuals, which are intimate and personal in nature and use.
• Justice B.V. Nagarathna partially dissented, emphasising the need for a balanced approach that considers both individual property rights and the community’s needs.

Implications of the Supreme Court Ruling

• It underlines the importance of protecting individual property rights while ensuring that resource redistribution serves the public interest in a balanced and justified manner. 
• Protection of Private Property Against Arbitrary State Acquisition: Supreme Court reinforces the protection of private property against arbitrary State acquisition and underscores the need for a more nuanced approach to resource redistribution. 
• Economic Shift: The decision reflects a shift towards a more market-oriented economic policy,moving away from the socialist ideologies that influenced earlier rulings.
  • The Supreme Court noted, ‘India’s dynamic economic policies over the past three decades have contributed to the country’s rapid growth, positioning it among the world’s fastest-growing economies’.
• It is expected to have a significant impact on future cases involving property rights and State powers in India.

Conclusion

• The Supreme Court’s ruling marks a critical juncture in the legal landscape of property rights in India. 
• It reaffirms the importance of due process and adequate compensation in the acquisition of private property by the state. 
• As India continues to evolve economically, this judgement provides a nuanced understanding of the nature of private property, balancing individual rights with the common good.

Source: TH