A 9-judge bench of the Supreme Court delivered a significant ruling on Tuesday regarding the state’s ability to take over private properties for the common good.
The majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, stated that not all private properties qualify as “material resources of the community” under Article 39(b) of the Constitution. As such, these properties cannot be appropriated by state authorities for redistribution.
Article 39(b) mandates that the state direct its policy to ensure that the ownership and control of material resources are distributed to best serve the common good.
The court clarified that interpreting all privately owned property as a resource available for state appropriation supports a “rigid economic theory” advocating for extensive state control over private assets.
While the ruling emphasized that states cannot claim all private properties, it acknowledged that there are certain circumstances under which private properties can be appropriated.
The majority judgment, which included opinions from Justices Hrishikesh Roy, JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, SC Sharma, and Augustine George Masih, overturned several previous rulings made after 1978 that had embraced a socialist approach, permitting states to take over private properties for the common good.
Justice BV Nagarathna partially disagreed with the majority opinion, issuing a separate judgment, while Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia dissented on all points raised in the case.
The Supreme Court’s decision stemmed from a series of petitions that began in 1992 and were referred to the 9-judge bench in 2002. The core issue was whether privately owned resources could be classified as material resources of the community under Article 39(b).
The court’s ruling aims to clarify the balance between private property rights and the state’s responsibility to serve the public interest.
This verdict has far-reaching implications for property rights in India, reinforcing the principle that the state can’t indiscriminately seize private properties under the guise of serving the common good.
As the legal landscape continues to evolve, this decision is poised to influence future cases involving property rights and state authority, emphasizing the need for a nuanced understanding of how public welfare intersects with individual rights.
