In the era of privatization and liberalization, a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court grapples with the contentious question: Should the State have the power to appropriate private property under Article 39(b) in the name of the common good? This debate challenges conventional notions of encouraging private enterprise and measuring national wealth by individual prosperity.
CJI’s Response to AG’s Argument
Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud responded to Attorney General R Venkataramani’s argument that private property falls under the definition of “material resource of the community” in Article 39(b), based on distributive justice. The CJI suggested that if this interpretation holds true, it serves as a “caveat” against privatization and liberalization.
Bench’s Inquiry into the Implications
Justice BV Nagarathna, one of the members on the bench, questioned the potential consequences: “Isn’t this a caveat against privatization and liberalization which is the order of the day today where private enterprise is being encouraged and as a result, the increase in private wealth would ultimately lead to the increase in the nation’s wealth?”
Clarification by Attorney General
In response to the bench’s inquiry, Venkataramani clarified, “I am not saying in the classic Marxist sense, you regulate everything. Such constitutional provision will receive the wisdom and maturity in an evolving framework. Even we have an expansive private market. But this provision will still have relevance.”
Purpose of Article 39(b)
Article 39(b) aims to achieve the “common good” by utilizing community resources, urging the State to consider the common welfare and manage resources owned by citizens. The Attorney General explained that Article 39(b) does not distinguish between public or private, or natural and human-made resources; rather, it focuses on serving the collective welfare.
Supreme Court’s Cautionary Note
The Supreme Court emphasized on Wednesday, April 24, 2024, that the Constitution aims for social transformation, cautioning against dismissing individual private property as irrelevant to the collective good. The Court stated that deeming private property immune from state intervention could pose dangers to societal progress.
