SC raises questions on granting State control over pvt property
NEW DELHI: A nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court, faced with an argument that the State can take over private property under Article 39(b) to serve common good, on Thursday raised questions on whether such a stand can be accepted in an era of privatisation and liberalisation, where efforts are made by governments to encourage private enterprise and where an increase in private wealth is seen as a measure of the nation’s wealth.
Dealing with the submissions by attorney general (AG) R Venkataramani that private property is included in the definition of “material resource of the community” occurring in Article 39(b), and is based on the principle of distributive justice, the bench headed by chief justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud said that, if this is so, it stands as a “caveat” against privatisation and liberalisation.
Justice BV Nagarathna, one of the members on the bench, asked: “Isn’t this a caveat against privatisation and liberalisation which is the order of the day today where private enterprise is being encouraged and as a result, the increase in private wealth would ultimately lead to the increase in the nation’s wealth?”
The AG was appearing for the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) which is defending a 1986 amendment to the MHADA Act that allowed the State to take over dilapidated building s in Mumbai under certain specified conditions. The state law relied on Article 39(b) of the Constitution which states: “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.” The action of the state was challenged by the property owners association of Maharashtra who said that Article 39(b) which talks of “material resources of community” does not include private property.
To be sure, the case is about acquiring property only under certain defined conditions, and has nothing to do with redistribution.
Friday was the third day of arguments before the bench, also comprising justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia, JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, SC Sharma and Augustine George Masih.
Responding to the bench, the AG said, “I am not saying in the classic Marxist sense, you regulate everything. Such constitutional provision will receive the wisdom and maturity in an evolving framework. Even we have an expansive private market. But this provision will still have relevance.”