Supreme Court Sets Boundaries on State Acquisition of Private Resources for Public Benefit

What’s in today’s article?

• Why in News?
• Constitutional Provisions Touched Upon by the SC in its Judgement Limiting State Acquisition of Private Resources
• Key Points of the SC Ruling Limiting State Acquisition of Private Resources
• The SC on Constitutional Safeguards for Privately Owned Resources
• Dissenting Views and Historical Context of Limiting State Acquisition of Private Resources
• Broader Implications of the SC Ruling Limiting State Acquisition of Private Resources

Why in News?

• The Supreme Court, in a landmark ruling, established limits on the government’s power to take over privately owned resources for public distribution.
• This ruling, passed by an 8-1 majority of a nine-judge Constitution bench, clarified the scope of Article 39(b) of the Indian Constitution, which concerns the State’s responsibility to manage resources for the common good.

Constitutional Provisions Touched Upon by the SC in its Judgement Limiting State Acquisition of Private Resources:

• Article 14: Guarantees the right to equality before the law and equal protection of the laws to all individuals within India. It prevents discrimination and ensures fairness in laws.
• Article 19: Provides citizens with certain fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of speech and expression, assembly, association, movement, residence, and profession.
  • These rights, however, are subject to reasonable restrictions for the sake of public order, morality, and national interest.
• Article 31C: Protects laws aimed at implementing Article 39(b) and 39(c) from being challenged on the grounds of violating the rights under Articles 14 and 19.
  • This “safe harbour” provision shields such laws if they promote public welfare by ensuring equitable distribution of resources.
• Article 39(b): Directs the State to manage the distribution of material resources of the community in a way that best serves the common good.
  • It guides policies that aim to reduce inequality and ensure resources benefit everyone.
• Article 39(c): Aims to prevent the concentration of wealth and means of production in a way that harms common welfare.
  • It encourages policies that reduce economic disparity and promotes fair distribution of wealth.

Key Points of the SC Ruling Limiting State Acquisition of Private Resources:

• Defining "Material Resources of the Community":
  • The Court clarified that only certain private resources, meeting specific criteria, qualify as “material resources of the community” under Article 39(b) and can thus be subject to state acquisition.
  • Each case would depend on the resource’s nature, scarcity, community impact, and whether public or private control serves community welfare better.
• Balancing public welfare and private property rights:
  • The Chief Justice of India (CJI), writing for the majority, stated that while public welfare is essential, it must be balanced against the rights of private property owners.
  • The court overruled previous expansive interpretations, underscoring India’s commitment to “economic democracy” that avoids strictly socialist or capitalist models, instead advocating a balanced approach that respects both public and private interests.
• Criteria for state acquisition:
  • The majority ruling outlined two criteria for a resource to be considered a “material resource of the community”:
    • It must be both significant (“material”) and
    • Hold a “community” element.
  • Examples given included resources that are scarce or essential for the community’s well-being, which may more easily justify state intervention.

The SC on Constitutional Safeguards for Privately Owned Resources:

• Article 39(b):
  • The ruling emphasised that Article 39(b) must be read in conjunction with Article 300A, which protects property rights under the Constitution.
  • The Court warned against using Article 39(b) as a blanket licence for acquiring private property, highlighting the need to respect property rights.
• Article 31C and immunity for public welfare laws:
  • The Court reiterated that Article 31C provides immunity to laws enacted for the common good as per Article 39(b) and (c).
  • However, this immunity applies only if such laws genuinely further public welfare objectives, ensuring that legislative actions aligning with these constitutional goals are protected from challenges under -
    • Article 14 and
    • Article 19.

Dissenting Views and Historical Context of Limiting State Acquisition of Private Resources:

• Historical context:
  • In 1977, Justice VR Krishna Iyer interpreted that all private property could potentially qualify for redistribution as a community resource.
  • This approach was followed by the SC in the 1982 Sanjeev Coke case, which had broadly interpreted state power over private resources.
  • The recent ruling, while rejecting this approach, overturned the 1982 Sanjeev Coke case and advocated a more balanced interpretation.
• Dissenting views:
  • Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia’s dissent: He wrote the only dissenting judgement, disagreeing with defining what qualifies as “material resources,” suggesting this responsibility should fall to the legislature rather than the Court.
  • Justice Nagarathna’s perspective: She argued that past interpretations, especially those by Justice Iyer, should not be disregarded, as they reflected historical priorities toward public welfare post-Independence.

Broader Implications of the SC Ruling Limiting State Acquisition of Private Resources:

• The recent ruling stemmed from a dispute involving MHADA (Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority), which acquired buildings for redevelopment.
  • Property owners challenged this acquisition, citing Articles 14 and 19.
• This ruling marks a significant development in interpreting the scope of Article 39(b), limiting the State’s power to acquire private resources for public welfare.
• By balancing public interest with private property rights, the Court has reinforced a framework that respects both individual and collective interests, establishing constitutional clarity for future cases.
• The Court’s decision impacts similar cases, requiring that each state acquisition of private resources align with Article 39(b) and ensure a genuine community benefit.

Q.1. What are the constitutional safeguards for the right to property in India?

The Supreme Court clarified that although the right to property ceased to be a fundamental right, it remains protected under Article 300A of the Constitution. The Court noted that any deprivation of property rights has to be in accordance with due legal process.

Q.2. What are the contributions of Justice PN Bhagwati and Justice VR Krishna Iyer?

As a Supreme Court judge, Justice Bhagwati introduced the concepts of public interest litigation (PIL) and absolute liability to the Indian judicial system. He is therefore held, along with Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer, to have pioneered judicial activism in the country.

News: Not all private properties can be used by State for the community: Supreme Court holds in majority decision | IE | IE