look news india
Supreme Court: The Supreme Court on Wednesday said that the purpose of the Constitution is to bring about a spirit of social change. It would be dangerous to say that the private property of an individual cannot be considered as the material resource of the community and cannot be appropriated by the State for public interest.
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, in accordance with its policy, endeavor to determine that the material resources of the community shall be owned and controlled in such a manner as is best for the welfare of the people generally. Counsel for the parties, including the Property Owners Association (POA) of Mumbai, strongly argued that personal property cannot be acquired by the State authorities under the cover of the constitutional schemes of Articles 39(b) and 31(c) of the Constitution.
The Constitution Bench said it may be a bit of an exaggeration to suggest that the material resources of a community mean only public resources. It does not originate from any individual's private property. I will tell you why it would be dangerous to have such a thought. The bench further said, take only common things like mines and private forests. Government policy under Section 39(B) will not apply to private forests. Far from it, it would be very dangerous to say so.
The Supreme Court said whether Maharashtra's law empowering authorities to take possession of dilapidated buildings is legal or not is an entirely separate issue and will be decided independently.
The Supreme Court asked whether it could be said that once the property is privatized, Article 39(B) would be of no use because the society demands welfare measures and redistribution of wealth is also necessary. Referring to the social and other conditions at the time of framing of the Constitution, the bench said, the objective of the Constitution was to bring about social change. We cannot say that Article 39(B) has no use after holding private property.
The Constitution bench also includes Justices Hrishikesh Roy, BV Nagarathna, Sudhanshu Dhulia, JB Pardiwala, Manoj Mishra, Rajesh Bindal, Satish Chandra Sharma and Augustine George Masih.
