"National Wealth Redistribution Proposal Is 'Juvenile'": SG | 9-Judge Bench

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

During the fourth day of proceedings before a 9-judge bench, the Solicitor General dismissed the National Wealth Redistribution Proposal as ‘juvenile.’ The debate centered on the nature of private property, with the SG asserting that such a proposal lacked maturity and feasibility.

"National Wealth Redistribution Proposal is 'Juvenile'": SG | 9-Judge Bench | Nature of Private Property [Day 4] — “National Wealth Redistribution Proposal is ‘Juvenile'”: SG | 9-Judge Bench | Nature of Private Property [Day 4]

NEW DELHI: On 30th April: In a recent Supreme Court hearing, wealth redistribution turned into a heated discussion. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that advocating for simplistic and outdated methods of achieving egalitarianism reflects a lack of understanding of economic development, governance, social welfare, and the nation.

The bench, including CJI Chandrachud and Justices Hrishikesh Roy, B V Nagarathna, S Dhulia, J B Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, R Bindal, S C Sharma, and A G Masih, appeared to share a consensus.

“Interpreting Article 39(b) to encompass privately-owned property as community resources would be overly extreme,” the bench remarked.

Regarding economic development, it noted the shift from a socialist pattern to a free market economy since the 1990s, emphasizing the role of private investments.

“Encouraging private investment is essential for a productive economy,” the bench highlighted.

Article 39(b) of the Constitution outlines distributing material resources for the common good. Mehta emphasized that this

Article 39 (b) should not be interpreted as a mandate to compute the nation’s wealth by aggregating the assets of every citizen and redistributing them equally among specific sections of society.

He clarified that legislation based on Article 39(b) should aim to utilize privately owned resources, such as land, for the greater benefit of the community without infringing upon the property rights of individuals.

Mehta highlighted the shift in India’s economic development from a socialist pattern to a free market economy since the 1990s. He emphasized the importance of encouraging private investment for a productive economy, citing examples such as private parties distributing electricity, which was inconceivable in the 1950s.

Chief Justice of India, CIIDY Chandrachud, stressed the need for a balanced interpretation of Article 39(b) that considers both socialist and capitalist perspectives in the context of India’s development. He acknowledged the complexity of categorizing all private properties as community resources while recognizing that certain private properties may fall under this classification. The court emphasized the importance of sending a clear message about India’s aspirations and values through its interpretation of Article 39(b).

After hearing Mehta, the bench said,

“Your arguments appear to contradict that of attorney general R Venkataramani who had argued that community resources would include private properties.”

Mehta emphasized that Article 39(b) aimed at fostering a welfare state to achieve the common good, suggesting that legislative intervention might be necessary to regulate material resources for distribution. He clarified that the government did not advocate extremes, either that all assets belong to the nation or community, or that no private property could be deemed community resources. “It varies based on the context and purpose,” he asserted.

Arguments will conclude on Wednesday.