Nature of Private Property [Day 2] 9-Judge Bench: ‘Need to Clarify Article 31C Position’

A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court continued to hear the case on April 24th to decide whether “material resources of the community” under Article 39(b) included private property. Yesterday, in a surprising turn of events, the Bench observed that “31C has to be decided.”

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court delved into the complex terrain of private property rights versus societal needs. This nine-judge bench, led by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, is tasked with interpreting whether private properties can be classified as “material resources of the community” under the constitutional framework, particularly examining Articles 39(b) and 31C.

The case in question stems from provisions of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (MHADA), which involve the potential acquisition of dilapidated buildings by the Mumbai Building Repair and Reconstruction Board (MBRRB) under specific conditions. This law and others like it stand at the intersection of individual property rights and the state’s mandate to redistribute resources for the common good.

Chief Justice Chandrachud highlighted the historical context, stating,

“The Constitution was intended to bring about social transformation, and we cannot say that Article 39 (b) has no application once property is privately held.”

He further elaborated on the dual perspectives of property in economic systems, contrasting the capitalist notion of exclusivity with the socialist model, which views all property as communal.

The Chief Justice further detailed,

“The socialist concept of property is the mirror image which attributes to property, a notion of commonality. Nothing is exclusive to the individual. All property is common to the community. That’s the extreme socialist view,”

-thereby emphasizing the Gandhian ethos ingrained in the Indian Constitution which treats property as a trust held on behalf of the community and future generations.

The Bench also considered the implications of Article 31C, especially in light of the Minerva Mills case, which challenged the constitutionality of certain amendments. They expressed the need for clarity on whether Article 31C still stands post-Minerva Mills, given the potential

“radical constitutional consequences.”

Senior Advocate Uttara Babbar, representing the petitioners, argued that the state’s right to distribute property presupposes its acquisition, hence challenging the MHADA’s authority under Article 39(b). She cited historical debates that underscored the framers’ intent, focusing solely on distribution rather than acquisition.

In contrast, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Senior Advocate Zal Andhyarujina, representing the state, argued for the constitutionality of Article 31C and its relevance in implementing state policies as per the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs). Mehta pointed out the legal precedent that supports the doctrine of revival, which would maintain Article 31C in its post-Kesavananda Bharati form.

The discussion brought forth by the Bench underscored a broader constitutional and philosophical debate on property rights. The justices are navigating through a labyrinth of legal precedents, the original intentions of the Constitution’s framers, and modern-day needs for social welfare and development.

As this high-stakes legal debate continues, the outcome will likely redefine the balance between individual property rights and the state’s role in redistributing resources for the greater good, setting a significant precedent for future constitutional and property law in India.

The Chief Justice of India (CJI) delved into the intricate layers of property rights, touching upon historical contexts and ideological underpinnings. The conversation pivoted around the nuanced understanding of property, juxtaposing contrasting perspectives of capitalism and socialism.

Highlighting the abolition of ‘Zamindari’ and the advent of capitalist notions of property, the CJI underscored how this transition imbued property with a sense of “exclusiveness.” This exclusivity, he argued, epitomized the capitalist ethos, where property ownership is strictly individualistic.

However, the narrative didn’t end there. The CJI traversed through ideological landscapes, shedding light on the socialist conception of property. Here, property transcends individual ownership, morphing into a communal asset.

“The socialist concept of property is the mirror image which attributes to property, a notion of commonality. Nothing is exclusive to the individual. All property is common to the community,”

-remarked the CJI, drawing a stark ideological contrast.

Yet, nestled within this ideological spectrum lies the Gandhian ethos, subtly influencing the Indian understanding of property.

“Our ethos regards property as something which we hold in trust,”

-the CJI elucidated.

This nuanced perspective doesn’t wholly embrace socialism’s communal ownership nor does it align entirely with capitalism’s individualistic fervor.

Justice Chandrachud, adding depth to the discourse, articulated a paradigm where property transcends temporal boundaries.

“We hold the property because of the succeeding generations in the family, but broadly, we also hold that property in trust for the wider community,”

-he explained.

This conception embodies the principle of sustainable development, where property isn’t merely a possession but a legacy passed down for the betterment of future generations.

The bench further dissected the notion of redistributive justice, navigating through the complexities of Article 39 (b) of the Indian Constitution.

“You must understand that Article 39 (b) has been crafted in a certain way in the Constitution because the Constitution was intended to bring about a social transformation,”

-remarked the CJI.

This provision, he argued, doesn’t negate private property but rather emphasizes its role as a societal resource.

In essence, the discourse transcended mere legal jargon, delving into the philosophical bedrock upon which property rights stand. It illuminated the intricate interplay between ideology, tradition, and constitutional mandate, offering a nuanced understanding of property in the Indian context.

Click Here to Read Previous Reports on CJI

Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Nature of Private Property

FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES