The recent Supreme Court judgment helps to distinguish the limits of State’s power for disposition of certain private property as ‘materials of the community welfare’, based on Article 39(b) of the Indian Constitution. In a 7:2 decision, the Court blessed earlier understandings in Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company Vs Union of India. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Anr. and State of Karnataka ors. Ranganatha Reddy which in essentials defined almost all private property as material resource hoping that it will be redistributed for the welfare of society.
The first, Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud’s majority decision, dismissed Article 39(b) as merely addressing every private property; rather, it refers to the resources that are, by their nature, gases for the community’s benefit that are not private dominium. The judgment amply illustrates how, by extending the coverage of Article 39(b) beyond just state property, it sacrifices the very spirit behind the enactment of Article 300A that brought into force an individual’s constitutional right to property. As such, only resources where certain community-centric criteria are achieved (for example scarcity, ecological surroundings, or public value: natural resources, spectral or radio frequencies).
The Court has justified its judgment through the principles of equity regarding rights in respect to property and the community. This decision deviates from previous laws admitting socialist principles into policy; what has been achieved is a more refined approach solidifying the existence of volition within India’s constitution as it pertains to the economy without compromising the private property rights excessively. This judgment is one that sets a precedent as to the role of private property in a broader scheme of public interest – though recognizing the capacity of declared property to so serve, the Australian courts have established certain parameters of property’s ratio unus to be classified as a material community asset.
Thus, Property Owners Association case will be referred as povs . The State of Maharashtra is a perfect example of how the judiciary continues to perform this role to protect property against state power today, and this decision is a guarded step towards the redistribution of personal property. This interpretation can be transformative in future disputes over property in cases where the state will acquire property under the Directive Principles of State Policy.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY: VAISHNAVI KUMARI
