New Delhi: Can private property be acquired for public welfare? The Supreme Court has made a big comment on this. The Supreme Court on Wednesday said the purpose of the Constitution is to bring about a ‘spirit of social transformation’ and it would be ‘dangerous’ to say that an individual’s private property cannot be considered a ‘physical resource of the community’ and the state cannot provide for ‘public welfare’. It cannot be captured by the authorities.
A nine-member Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud made this comment. The bench is looking into whether privately owned resources can be considered ‘physical resources of the community’. Earlier, counsel for various parties including the Property Owners Association (POA) of Mumbai strongly argued that private properties cannot be taken over by state authorities under the guise of constitutional schemes under Articles 39(B) and 31C of the Constitution.
The bench is considering the complex legal question arising out of various petitions whether private property can be considered as ‘material resource of the community’ under Article 39(b) of the Constitution. Article 39(B) of the Constitution is part of the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP). The bench said, ‘It may be a bit extreme to say that ‘material resources of the community’ means only public resources and do not originate in the private property of any individual. I will tell you why it is dangerous to have such a viewpoint.
The bench said, ‘Take simple things like mines and private forests. For example, for us to say that government policy under Article 39(B) will not apply to private forests… so stay away from that. This would be extremely dangerous. The bench also included Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice BV Nagarathna, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice JB Pardiwala, Justice Manoj Mishra, Justice Rajesh Bindal, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Augustine George Christ.
Referring to the social and other prevailing conditions of the 1950s, the bench said, ‘The objective of the Constitution was to bring about social change and we cannot say that Article 39(B) has no application on private property.’ The bench said whether the Maharashtra law empowering authorities to take possession of dilapidated buildings is valid or not is an entirely different issue and will be considered separately. The hearing was not completed and it will continue on Thursday.
,
Tags: DY Chandrachud, Justice DY Chandrachud, Supreme Court
FIRST PUBLISHED: April 25, 2024, 06:24 IST