State cannot take over private property solely for “common good”: Supreme Court delivers landmark verdict

By
Ziraat Times
-

Follow Ziraat Times on Whatsapp - Join Now

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday, November 5, ruled that the State cannot take over private property solely under the pretext of serving the “common good”. The ruling, held by a majority of 8:1, adds that private property does not qualify as “material resources of the community” as defined under Article 39(b) of the Indian Constitution.

The nine-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud delivered the judgment on the vexed issue with an 8-1 majority.

Three judgments were authored — the Chief Justice wrote one for himself and six colleagues, Justice BV Nagarathna wrote a concurrent but separate judgment and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia dissented. The judges on the bench were Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice Nagarathna BV, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice JB Pardiwala, Justice Manoj Misra, Justice Rajesh Bindal, Justice SC Sharma and Justice AG Masih.

The case relates to Article 31C of the Constitution that protects laws made by the State to fulfill directive principles of state policy — guidelines the Constitution lays down for governments to follow while making laws and policies. Among the laws that Article 31C protects is Article 39B. Article 39B lays down that the State shall direct its policy towards ensuring that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good.

On this, the Chief Justice remarked, “Does material resource of a community used in 39B include privately owned resources? Theoretically, the answer is yes, the phrase may include privately owned resources. However, this court is unable to subscribe itself to the minority view of Justice Iyer in Ranganath Reddy. We hold that not every resource owned by an individual can be considered a material resource of a community only because it meets the qualifier of material needs.”

“The enquiry about the resource in question falls under 39B must be contest-specific and subject to a non-exhaustive list of factors such as nature of resource, the characteristics, the impact of the resource on well-being of the community, the scarcity of resource and consequences of such a resource being concentrated in the hands of private players, the public trust doctrine evolved by this court may also help identify resources which fall under the ambit of material resource of a community,” he added.

In 1977, a seven-judge bench had ruled with a 4:3 majority that all privately owned property did not fall within the ambit of material resources of the community. In a minority opinion, however, Justice Krishna Iyer held that both public and private resources fell within the ambit of “material resources of the community” under Article 39(b).

 

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

892 COMMENTS

  255. Achat mГ©dicament en ligne fiable Pharmacie en ligne livraison Europe or Pharmacie en ligne livraison Europe
    https://www.rpbusa.org/rpb/?count=2&action=confirm&denial=Sorry, this site is not set up for RSS feeds.&redirect=https://tadalafilmeilleurprix.com pharmacie en ligne sans ordonnance
    Pharmacie en ligne livraison Europe pharmacie en ligne france livraison internationale and pharmacie en ligne sans ordonnance pharmacie en ligne france livraison internationale

  554. Казино предлагает отличные условия для РёРіСЂС‹.: balloon game – balloon казино официальный сайт

  557. Каждый СЃРїРёРЅ может стать выигрышным!: balloon game – balloon игра на деньги

  664. Clom Fast Pharm [url=https://clomfastpharm.shop/#]can i order cheap clomid pill[/url] where buy generic clomid pill

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here