{"id":31784,"date":"2024-11-06T18:27:59","date_gmt":"2024-11-06T12:57:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/?p=31784"},"modified":"2024-11-06T18:28:02","modified_gmt":"2024-11-06T12:58:02","slug":"every-private-property-not-a-community-resource-sc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/current-affairs\/06-11-2024\/every-private-property-not-a-community-resource-sc","title":{"rendered":"Every Private Property Not a Community Resource: SC"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p><strong>Syllabus: GS2\/Polity and Governance<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Context<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Recently, <strong>a nine-judge Constitution Bench<\/strong> of the Supreme Court of India ruled that the State cannot take over private property solely under the pretext of serving the<strong><em> \u2018common good\u2019.<\/em><\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-background\" style=\"background-color:#fff2cc\"><tbody><tr><td><strong>Background of the Case<\/strong><br>&#8211; The case was <strong>initiated by the Mumbai-based Property Owners Association<\/strong>, challenging the constitutionality of Chapter VIII-A of the <strong>Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act 1976<\/strong>, which allowed the State to acquire private property with compensation set at one hundred times the monthly rent.\u00a0<br>&#8211; The <strong>petitions, initially filed in 1992<\/strong>, were referred to a nine-judge bench in 2002 and finally <strong>heard in 2024<\/strong> after more than two decades.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Nature of Private Property<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The concept of private property has been a cornerstone of legal and economic systems worldwide.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Private property rights in India have evolved through various constitutional amendments and judicial interpretations.\u00a0<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Initially<\/strong>, the <strong>\u2018right to property\u2019<\/strong> was a<strong> fundamental right under Article 19(1)(f)<\/strong> and <strong>Article 31 <\/strong>of the Constitution.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>However, the <strong>44th Amendment in 1978<\/strong> relegated it to a <strong>constitutional right under Article 300A<\/strong>, allowing the state to acquire private property only through due process and with adequate compensation.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Supreme Court\u2019s Ruling<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The majority opinion, led by the Chief Justice of India, found that <strong>Justice Krishna Iyer\u2019s 1978 ruling<\/strong>, which suggested that <em>all private properties could be considered community resources<\/em>, is <strong>\u2018unsustainable\u2019<\/strong>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The court ruled that not all privately owned property could be considered <strong><em>\u2018material resources of the community\u2019<\/em><\/strong> under <strong>Article 39(b) of the Directive Principles of State Policy<\/strong>, and this should be assessed on a <strong>case-by-case basis <\/strong>rather than through a blanket application.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>It <strong>overturned the 1978 judgement<\/strong> by Justice Krishna Iyer, which had a broader interpretation of <strong>Article 39(b).<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Revisiting Article 39(b)<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The Supreme Court, in its recent ruling, clarifies that <strong>private property cannot be classified as <\/strong><strong><em>\u2018material resources of the community\u2019<\/em><\/strong> merely because it meets a certain social or economic criterion.\u00a0<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The majority opinion asserts that taking private assets in the name of the common good<strong> requires a more rigorous justification.<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-background\" style=\"background-color:#fff2cc\"><tbody><tr><td><strong>Article 39(b)<\/strong><br>&#8211; It comes under the <strong>Directive Principle of State Policy<\/strong>. It directs the State to work towards <strong>redistributing resources to best serve the public interest<\/strong>.<br>&#8211; It imposes a positive obligation on the State to frame policy to ensure that the <strong><em>\u2018ownership and control of material resources of the community\u2019<\/em><\/strong> are distributed in such a way that they<strong><em> \u2018subserve the common good\u2019.<\/em><\/strong><br><strong>Article 31C<\/strong><br>&#8211; It was introduced by the <strong>25th Amendment in 1971<\/strong> <strong>to protect laws<\/strong> <strong>formulated under Articles 39(b) and 39(c)<\/strong>, allowing the State to acquire resources essential to the community\u2019s welfare.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Dissenting Opinions: Justice Nagarathna&#8217;s Views<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>\u2018Material resources\u2019<\/strong> can in the first instance be divided into <strong>two basic categories, <\/strong>namely:<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>State owned resources which belong to the State which are essentially material resources of the community, held in public trust by the State; and\u00a0<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Privately owned resources.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>However, the expression \u2018material resources\u2019 does not include \u2018personal effects\u2019 or \u2018personal belonging\u2019 of individuals, which are intimate and personal in nature and use.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Justice B.V. Nagarathna partially dissented, emphasising the need for a balanced approach that considers both individual property rights and the community&#8217;s needs.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-background\" style=\"background-color:#ebecf0\"><tbody><tr><td><strong>Private and Material Resources<\/strong><br>&#8211; There may exist private ownership of forests, ponds, fragile areas, wetlands and resource-bearing lands. Such resources fall within the <strong>ambit of Article 39(b).<\/strong><br>&#8211; Similarly, resources like spectrum, airwaves, natural gas, mines and minerals, which are scarce and finite, may sometimes be within private control.<br>&#8211; <strong>Private resources<\/strong> can be <strong>turned into material resources<\/strong> of the community by means such as <strong><em>Nationalisation; Acquisition; Operation of law; By purchase by state; and Owner&#8217;s donation.<\/em><\/strong><br><strong>Criteria for &#8216;Material Resources of the Community&#8217;<\/strong><br>&#8211; The ruling clarifies that, a resource should be assessed through multiple lenses to qualify as a \u2018material resource of the community\u2019:<br>1. Nature and characteristics of the resource;<br>2. Impact on public welfare;<br>3. If the resource is State-controlled versus privately held;<br>4. Scarcity and availability of the resource; and<br>5. Implications of concentrated ownership among private entities.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Implications of the Supreme Court Ruling<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>It underlines the importance of protecting individual property rights while ensuring that resource redistribution serves the public interest in a balanced and justified manner.\u00a0<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Protection of Private Property Against Arbitrary State Acquisition: <\/strong>Supreme Court reinforces the <strong>protection of private property against arbitrary State acquisition<\/strong> and underscores the need for a more nuanced approach to resource redistribution.\u00a0<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Economic Shift:<\/strong> The decision reflects a <strong>shift towards a more market-oriented economic policy,<\/strong><strong>moving away from the socialist ideologies<\/strong> that influenced earlier rulings.\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The Supreme Court noted, <em>\u2018India\u2019s dynamic economic policies over the past three decades have contributed to the country\u2019s rapid growth, positioning it among the world\u2019s fastest-growing economies\u2019<\/em>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>It is expected to have a significant impact on future cases involving property rights and State powers in India.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Conclusion<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The Supreme Court\u2019s ruling marks a critical juncture in the legal landscape of property rights in India.\u00a0<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>It reaffirms the importance of due process and adequate compensation in the acquisition of private property by the state.\u00a0<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>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.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.thehindu.com\/news\/national\/private-properties-cannot-be-taken-over-by-government-supreme-court\/article68831508.ece\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Source: TH<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>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 \u2018common good\u2019.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-31784","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-current-affairs"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31784","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=31784"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31784\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":31785,"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31784\/revisions\/31785"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=31784"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=31784"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=31784"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}