Amidst the escalating political rhetoric revolving around the wealth redistribution concept, the apex court is striving to maintain a balance between redistribution goals and property rights. The SC aims to delve deeper and explore the broader implications of Article 39 (b) and its alignment vis a vis the principles of social justice and equitable distribution of resources.
The bench reiterated that keeping in mind the reflections of the social and economic conditions prevalent during the framing of the Constitution, the relevance of Article 39 (b) fosters social transformation and facilitates in addressing the societal demands for welfare measures.
In a recent hearing, the apex court engaged in a significant discussion regarding the interpretation of wealth redistribution, pertaining to the private property and its relation to the common good.
The nine-judge bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, including and Justices Hrishikesh Roy, B V Nagarathna, S Dhulia, J B Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, R Bindal, S C Sharma, and A G Masih delved into the nuanced understanding of whether privately-owned resources could be considered as “material resources of the community” under Article 39(b) of Directive Principles of State Policy in the Constitution.
The CJI drew a divergence from Justice VR Krishna Iyer’s 1977 interpretation of Article 39(b) of the Constitution, which has heavily influenced by Marxist ideology of Article 39(b) of the Indian Constitution.
Apex court inferred that that there are two extreme views: first dimension is the Marxist socialist angle which views that everything belongs to the state and the community. On the other hand, the capitalist view states that individual rights must be prioritised and then there is the Gandhian philosophical anarchist view who view holding resources in trust for protecting inter-generational equity.
The bench stated that there must be a line drawn between assets of the community held in trust by the present generation for future generations and property that is privately owned. The CJI discussed diverse perspectives on community property, including Marxist socialist, capitalist, and Gandhian perspectives.
The CJI further added that community property includes natural resources like forests, lakes, mines etc. Even if they are held privately, they would constitute community resources and thus benefits augmented through them cannot be hampered by invoking individual rights. The CJI referred to historical reforms such as the abolition of ‘Zamindari’ and outlined contrasting perspectives on property ownership, ranging from capitalist exclusivity to socialist commonality.
According to Advocate T Srinivasa Murthy, the essence of Articles 38 and 39 of the DPSP lies on the foundation of social and economic justice. It is aimed at making citizens active participants in nation’s economic progress and maintain their individual dignity as well. The objectives of the Articles is to make citizens as cohorts and not some mere applicants and beneficiaries.
In a nutshell, the notion of absolute equality that Grand Old party is advocating is misconstrued and a utopian idea. Only an egalitarian society can exist where each member of the society would be provided a fair chance to seek basic liberties and rights. Consequently, it endorses equality of opportunity, status and facilities and not the equality of results.
Article 39(b) is not a land acquisition provision. If the government wishes to acquire a land for a housing project for the poor, then it must be ensured that the rightful compensation is presented to the current owners.
However, the interpretation of Article 39(b) should not be extended to the point where seizing someone else’s private property for distribution is advocated. The bench concurred that Article 39(b) was not a vehicle for acquiring community resources but advanced an objective anticipated by the Constitution writers.
The arguments put forth during the proceedings were presented by various parties including the Property Owners Association (POA) of Mumbai. They have vehemently argued against the notion that private properties could be seized by state authorities under constitutional schemes such as Articles 39 (b) and 31 C. The bench, however, heeded caution against an extreme interpretation that excludes private property from being considered as material resources of the community.
The deliberations on this complex legal question remained inconclusive and are set to continue. This signifies a vital judicial inquiry to untangle the interplay of private property rights and the common good.
