New Delhi, November 5: The Supreme Court, in a significant majority ruling, has today emphasized that not all private properties can be acquired by the government, even under the premise of the "greater good." The nine-judge bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, ruled 7:1:1 on this contentious issue, highlighting that private assets do not automatically qualify as "material resources of the community" under Article 39(b) of the Indian Constitution, which would allow the State to acquire them for public benefit.
The verdict examined the scope of Article 31C, which, under Articles 39(b) and (c), allows the State to acquire "material resources" to serve the common good. However, the majority ruled that private ownership cannot be overridden solely on these grounds. Justice Nagrathna partially concurred with the majority, while Justice Dhulia dissented. The court clarified that its role is to enable economic democracy, not set economic policies.
The landmark judgment references the 1980 Minerva Mills case, where the court declared certain amendments from the 42nd Amendment unconstitutional for undermining fundamental rights in favor of the Directive Principles of State Policy. This context adds depth to the court's interpretation of Article 31C and the balance between state authority and individual property rights.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing Maharashtra, argued that the legislative body should determine what constitutes "material resources" in light of national welfare objectives. Meanwhile, property owners' associations opposed the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) Act, which empowers the State to acquire private property for community purposes if a majority of occupants consent, based on Article 39(b).
The ruling underscores a careful stance on property rights, emphasizing that private ownership cannot be universally deemed "material resources" for communal claims, thus preserving a crucial balance between individual rights and public welfare.
