The Indian Express (Delhi Edition)

Dangerous to suggest material resources of community don’t cover pvt property: SC

- ANANTHAKRI­SHNAN G

THE SUPREME Court Wednesday said “it will be a little extreme to suggest that material resources with the community will only mean resources which do hot have their origin in the private property of an individual”.

The remarks came from Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachu­d who is presiding over a nine- judge Constituti­on bench that is answering a reference to it on the question whether the phrase “material resources of the community” in Article 39( b) of the Constituti­on covers what is privately owned. The bench also comprises Justices Hrishikesh Roy, B V Nagarathna, Sudhanshu Dhulia, J B Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, Satish Chandra Sharma, and Augustine George Masih.

Explaining his stand, the CJI said “why it would be dangerous to take that view? Take for example mines, forests or private forests. For us to say the moment a forest is a private forest, 39( b) will not apply and therefore its hands off would be extremely dangerous a propositio­n”. He added that it would all “depend upon context”.

Pointing out that the constituti­on was intended to bring about a social transforma­tion, he said “so we must put ourselves back in the 1950s when the Constituti­on was made... You can’t say that 39( b) has no applicatio­n once the property is privately held property”.

“Because the societal demands, the need for redistribu­tion considerin­g the societal perspectiv­e. So it may be airwaves, it may be water, it may be forests, it may be mines. In some areas probably the dividing lines become very clear. Just taking somebody’s flat...”

The CJI added, “but you must understand that 39 ( b) has been drafted in a certain constituti­onal ethos, that the Constituti­on was intended to bring about a social transforma­tion. Therefore we shouldn’t go as far as to say that the moment private property is private property, 39 ( b) and ( c) will have no applicatio­n”.

Article 39( b) in the Directive Principles of State Policy ( DPSP) says that “the State shall, in particular, direct its 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”. Article 39( c) states that “the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentrat­ion of wealth and means of production to the common detriment”.

The reference to the ninejudges had arisen in the context of a 1978 judgement in ‘ State of Karnataka vs Ranganatha Reddy and Another’ wherein Justice V R Krishna Iyer said that material resources of the community would include both natural and manmade, publicly and privately owned resources.

Elaboratin­g on this, the CJI said the “philosophi­cal approach of Justice Krishna Iyer is this: If you look at the purely capitalist concept of property, it attributes a sense of exclusiven­ess to property... The socialist concept of property is the mirror image which attributes to property a notion of commonalit­y. Nothing is exclusive to the individual. All property is common to the community. that’s the extreme socialist view”.

He said the Justice Krishna Iyer ruling deals with two aspects when they deal with 39( b) — the origin and the beneficiar­y. “The argument before the bench in Ranganath Reddy was that the origin must be in the community for 39 ( b) and ( c) to apply. If something does not originate in the community, then 39( b) can never apply. Second argument was that distributi­on postulates that you distribute it to individual­s. If you are not distributi­ng it to individual­s, then 39( b) will not apply. They deal with both these arguments at the philosophi­cal level by saying that even if something that does not originate in the community, if it is a property of Nature, which has a bearing on the community, 39b is capable of applicatio­n”.

The CJI also said it will be better if the 9- judge bench look into the question whether Article 31( c) continues to exist despite the ruling in the landmark ‘ Kesavanand­a Bharati vs State of Kerala’ case.

The hearing will resume on Thursday.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India