look news india
Can the government redistribute privately owned property? Amidst the political debate, this question has also been raised before the Supreme Court. On Wednesday, the court started hearing the related case. The court must decide whether the government can acquire and redistribute private properties if they are considered 'physical resources of the community'. There is such a provision in Article 39(B) of the Constitution. A Constitution bench of 9 judges headed by CJI DY Chandrachud will give the verdict in this case. On Wednesday, the court said that there should be a difference between the present generation and the coming generation. The CJI said that community property would include natural resources. We cannot say that Article 39(B) does not apply to private properties like water, forests and mines. But this should not be taken to the level of division of someone's personal property.
What is the case before the Supreme Court
The case currently before the Supreme Court is a challenge to the 1986 amendment to the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (MHADA) by owners of acquired properties in Mumbai. MHADA was created in 1976 because people were living in many old, dilapidated buildings in Mumbai. MHADA started collecting cess from people living in such buildings. This money was to be used for repair work and reconstruction.
In 1986, Section 1 was added to MHADA by subscribing to Section 39(B). This section provides for the 'acquisition' of lands and buildings and their transfer to 'needy persons' and 'occupiers of such lands and buildings'. Chapter VIII-A was also added to the statute by the amendment. It provides that the state government will be allowed to acquire cess buildings (and the land on which they are built) if 70 percent of the residents recommend it.
The Property Arms Association in Mumbai challenged MHADA's Chapter VIII-A in the Bombay High Court. Argued that this violates the right to equality under Article 14. After not getting relief from the High Court, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court in December 1992. The question before the Supreme Court was whether the material resources of the community referred to in Article 39(b) included private property or not. This will also include equipped buildings. In March 2001, a five-judge bench referred the case to a larger bench. In February 2002, a seven-judge bench took Justice Iyer's definition seriously but referred the matter to a nine-judge bench. A bench of nine judges is hearing this case.
What is written in Article 39(B) of the Constitution?
Article 39(B) comes under the 'Directive Principles of State Policy' given in Part IV of the Constitution. Accordingly, it is the responsibility of the state to formulate policies that distribute ownership and control of the material resources of the community in a manner that maximizes the common good. The Directive Principles are for guidance only. It cannot be directly implemented in any court.
Since 1977, the Supreme Court has interpreted Article 39(b) several times. In 1977, in the case of Karnataka vs Sri Ranganatha Reddy, a 7-judge bench of the Supreme Court held on a 4:3 basis that privately owned property does not fall within the scope of 'material resources of the community'. Justice Krishna Iyer's dissenting opinion in that decision later proved important.
Justice Iyer said that private properties should also be counted among the material resources of the community. In the 1983 case of Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company v. Bharat Coking Coal, a five-judge bench upheld Justice Iyer's definition. Justice Iyer's definition was also relied upon in the 1996 case of Mafatlal Industries vs. Union of India.
Let us tell you here that Lok Sabha elections are to be held in December. The main opposition party Congress has raised the issue of inheritance tax to woo voters. First of all, Rahul Gandhi said that if Congress government is formed then everyone's property will be investigated. This information will be obtained as to who has how much property. Sam Pitroda completed the remaining work. Pitroda spoke in favor of inheritance tax. Last year, Rahul had given the slogan of 'Jan-Jan' to the same number of people.
These statements of Congress leaders were seized upon by PM Narendra Modi and the ruling BJP. Modi said Congress has the 'dangerous gift' of snatching away people's property and rights. He took a jibe at the opposition party through the tagline of LIC and said that the mantra of Congress is 'I will take life with you, even after life'. However, Congress has maintained distance from Pitroda's statement. Pitroda said that the media distorted his statement.