NEW DELHI: Constitution bench of the Supreme Court has ruled that all privately-owned properties cannot be acquired by the state for public good. The court suggested certain criteria for the same.
The constitution bench of the Supreme Court set aside the October 11, 1977, judgment of a seven-judge Constitution bench comprising Justice VR Krishna Iyer that all private property belongs to the society.
Krishna Iyer's verdict was based on socialist economic ideology. The new ruling is based on the observation that that ideology is no longer relevant and that the world has shifted to a market-centric economy.
The verdict was pronounced by a nine-judge bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia wrote a dissenting judgment defending Krishna Iyer's verdict. Justice BV Nagarathna supported the verdict but disagreed with the remarks about Krishna Iyer. The bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy, JB Pardiwala, Manoj Mishra, Rajesh Bindal, Satish Chandra Sharma and Augustine George Masih fully agreed with the verdict.
Not suitable for new age
Justice Krishna Iyer was hearing the case between the Karnataka government and Ranganatha Reddy in connection with the acquisition of land for the Karnataka Transport Corporation in 1978.
Article 39B of the Constitution states that an equitable distribution of material resources shall be ensured for the common good of the society. The court has now examined the issue of whether all private properties in the country are a material resource of society, according to this verdict.
In the 1960s and 1970s the socialist economy was evident in the world, but from the 1990s onwards the market shifted to a centralized economy. The country has followed a dynamic economic policy for over 30 years and has become the fastest-growing economy in the world. Therefore, VR Krishna Iyer's position cannot be accepted in this period.
Specificity of resources should be evaluated
Each case should be evaluated separately to decide whether private property is a material resource of society. The criteria should be the nature and specificity of the resource, the impact of the resource on the well-being of the community, the scarcity of resources, and the impact of concentrating private assets only on a few.
Resources related to the environment and the well-being of society can be regarded as the material resource of society, even if owned by an individual. These are within the ambit of Article 39(b) as it is in the interest of society to maintain them. These include forest, water bodies, wetlands, ecologically fragile areas, mineral-rich land, natural gas, mines and spectrum.
