By giving a path-breaking decision that the government cannot take over every private property, the Supreme Court has protected the rights of private property holders and has also strengthened the ground for accelerating the economy. The decision of the Supreme Court has shown that private property also has its own rights, which cannot be ignored. Now governments i.e. policy makers will have to create a more equitable and transparent framework for land acquisition and other private property acquisition. The new decision is important from many points of view and is indicative of ideal governance and justice system. This decision is not only historic because it was given by a nine-member Constitution bench, but is also unique because it reflected the socialist idea which was under pressure to be made an essential part of the customs and policies of governments. It is clear that this decision of the Supreme Court is also a blow to those socialist and leftist thinkers who were engaged in creating an environment that poverty and inequality in the country can be removed only when the government is able to redistribute wealth and She should have the right to acquire anyone’s property.
The latest judgment said that every resource owned by an individual cannot be considered a material resource of the community merely because it fulfills material needs. The Court held that before any privately owned property can be considered a material resource of the community it must satisfy certain stringent tests. Interpreting Article 39(B) of the Constitution, the Court said that the inquiry regarding the resource falling under Article 39(B) should be based on certain specific things. These may include factors such as the nature of the resource, its characteristics, the impact of the resource on the well-being of the community, the scarcity of the resource and the consequences of concentration of such resources in private hands. This will require identification and testing. The bench said that the principles of public trust developed by the Supreme Court can also help in identifying the resources which fall within the scope of physical resources of the community. Historically land acquisition in India has often been controversial, with large-scale acquisitions for industrial projects or infrastructure development sparking significant protests. Cases like Singur and Nandigram highlighted the resistance of land owners and farmers against government acquisition. The Supreme Court has also clarified that the right to private property is considered a human right. Therefore, it is mandatory for the state to follow proper procedure to deprive a person of his property.
Also read: SC On Private Land Acquisition: Historic decision of the Constitution Bench of 9 judges, Government cannot take possession of every private property.
By overturning its own decision given in 1978, the nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court headed by the Chief Justice has not only protected the public interest but has also rectified a major lacuna in the law. Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice Manoj Mishra, Justice Rajesh Bindal, Justice JB Pardiwala, Justice SC Sharma and Justice Augustine George Masih were unanimous in the judgment, while Justice BV Nagarathna partially agreed with the judgment while Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia expressed disagreement on all aspects. Learned judges, while treating private properties as material resources of the community, have restrained the right of the State to expropriate or acquire them and distribute them for the public good, holding that all private properties cannot form part of the material resources of the community. The Supreme Court also made it clear that the government can acquire private properties only to a certain extent.
With its decision, the Supreme Court also underlined that during the Emergency, the work done to adopt socialist methods in the Indian governance system by adding the word socialism along with secularism in the Preamble of the Constitution, was futile and not justified. . It would be better if this futility is also understood by those people who give more importance to redistribution of wealth than creation of it. This is not the way to take the country towards prosperity. It cannot be possible, because experience around the world shows that countries which adopted extreme socialist methods in the name of the welfare of their people, ended up facing economic difficulties. Today, when India is moving towards becoming the third largest economy in the world, the latest decision of the Supreme Court will give it a faster pace and protect the rights of the private sector. To give a faster pace to the economy and market, it is necessary to protect the rights of the private sector.
A nine-member bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud has given this decision while answering legal questions sent to the Constitution Bench in a case from Maharashtra. CJI Chandrachud said that the role of this court is not to decide economic policies, because people have voted for the government for this. But if all private properties are considered community resources, then it is a violation of the basic principles of the Constitution, hence stopping it comes under the ambit of law. He also said that the economy has changed since the 1990s and now focuses on a market-oriented economic model. For this, nationalistic thinking is necessary. The Constitution Bench also made it clear that Justice Iyer’s approach was based on a socialist theme and cannot be agreed with. In 1977, in the Karnataka vs. Ranganatha Reddy case, Justice Iyer had described private properties as community resources. In 1982, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court agreed with Justice Iyer’s decision in the Bharat Coking Coal Limited case. But now by changing the spirit and goal of those decisions, the Supreme Court has created a more suitable and positive environment. This decision stops the arbitrariness of governments in this direction. Thus, the Supreme Court’s latest decision on private property serves to reject the nearly four-decade-old decision that all privately owned resources can be acquired by the state. It is good that the Supreme Court also understood the need to clarify that the said decision was inspired by a particular economic and socialist ideology.
The decision of the Supreme Court also shows that it is not right to keep the country within the ambit of any particular type of economic philosophy and the economic methods should be such that India, as a developing country, can face the emerging challenges. . The economic model of the country has changed and the private sector has great importance in it. Giving the government absolute power to acquire private properties will discourage investment. It should be expected that with this decision of the Supreme Court, there will no longer be any doubt in the matter of private property as to what is community resource and what is not? Whatever be the country, it should adopt its economic philosophy according to the country, time and circumstances, and not according to what the old tradition says. Change with time is the basis of progress. It is good that the Supreme Court strengthened this foundation. While this far-reaching decision of the Supreme Court has drawn the limits of the government’s authority over private properties, it has also given a blow to the thinking of that class which says that all the properties will be surveyed and distributed equally. This decision not only confirms the individual’s right to private property, but also nourishes the thought and feeling of national interest.
– Lalit Garg
Writer, Journalist, Columnist
