PTI, New Delhi.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday said the purpose of the Constitution is to bring about the ‘spirit of social change’. It would be dangerous to say that the private property of an individual cannot be treated as a material resource of the community and cannot be acquired by the State for the public good.
A nine-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud made this comment. The Constitution Bench is considering the question whether private properties can be considered as material resources of the community under Article 39(b) of the Constitution? This matter has been raised in the Supreme Court through several petitions.
Article 39(b) of the Constitution provides that the State shall endeavor by its policy to ensure that the material resources of the community are owned and controlled in such a manner as is best for the common good. Counsel for the parties, including the Property Owners Association (POA) of Mumbai, strongly argued that private properties cannot be acquired by state authorities under the guise of constitutional schemes under Articles 39(B) and 31(C) of the Constitution.
The Constitution Bench said it may be a bit extreme to suggest that ‘physical resources of the community’ means only public resources. Its origin does not lie in the private property of any individual. I will tell you why it would be dangerous to take such a view. The bench further said, take simple things like mines and even private forests. Government policy will not be applicable to private forests under Article 39(B)…so stay away from it, it would be very dangerous to say this.
The Supreme Court said whether Maharashtra’s law empowering authorities to take possession of dilapidated buildings is valid or not is an entirely separate issue and has to be decided independently.
The top court asked whether it could be said that once property becomes private, there would be no use of Article 39(B), because society demands welfare measures and there is also a need for redistribution of wealth. Referring to the social and other conditions when the Constitution was made, the bench said, the objective of the Constitution was to bring about social change. We cannot say that Article 39(B) is of no use once the property is privately held.
The Constitution bench also includes Justices Hrishikesh Roy, BV Nagarathna, Sudhanshu Dhulia, JB Pardiwala, Manoj Mishra, Rajesh Bindal, Satishchandra Sharma and Augustine George Masih.
