Is seizure and redistribution of private property possible? Indian SC weighs in

The Indian Supreme Court said on Wednesday (Apr 24) that it would be dangerous to say that the private property of an individual cannot be regardedas material resources of the community and taken over by state authorities to subserve the "common good".

This observation was made by a Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI)DY Chandrachudexaminingwhether privately owned resources canbe considered"material resources of thecommunity".

Add WION as a Preferred Source

The counsel for parties, includingthe Property Owners Association (POA) of Mumbai, then made vehement submissions thatstate authorities cannot take over private properties under the garb of constitutional schemes of Articles 39 (b) and 31 C of the Constitution.

A report by the news agency PTI said that the bench was considering the vexed legal questionarising from the petitions on whether private properties can beconsidered"material resources of the community" under Article 39 (b).

What is Article 39 (b)?

Article 39 (b) of the Constitutionmakes it obligatory forthe Stateto create policy towards securing "that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good."

A total of 16 petitionsincludingthe lead petition filed by the Mumbai-basedPOAwere heardby the bench.

What did the bench say?

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court bench saidthat itmight be a little extreme to suggest that material resources of the community only meant "public resources and we do not have their origin in the private property of an individual."

"Take simple things like mines and even private forests. For instance, for us to say that the governmental policy will not apply to the private forests under Article 39 (b)...therefore keep the hands off. It will beextremely dangerousas a proposition," the bench added.

The bench highlighted that the Constitutionwas intendedto bring about social transformationandwe cannot say that Article 39 (b) has no application once the propertyis privately held.

Also watch | Indian Supreme Court links right against climate change to Article 21 & 14

It further said thatwhether the Maharashtralaw,empowering authorities to take over dilapidatedbuildings,was valid or not was a completely different issue and would be decided independently.

Meanwhile, CJI Chandrachud said, "You must understand that Article 39 (b) has been crafted in a certain way in the Constitution because the Constitutionwas intendedto bring about a social transformation. We shouldn'tthereforegothat far to say that the moment private property is private property, Article 39 (b) will have no application."

(With inputs from agencies)