Private Property Can Be Redistributed For Common Good But Not Without Caveats, Says Supreme Court

Private properties can be redistributed to subserve the common good, but this does not mean that every private resource can be redistributed by the government, the Supreme Court has held.

The nature of the resource, the scarcity of the resource, and the impact of the said resource in the hands of a few are some of the metrics that will have to be looked at in each specific case, the court has said.

In 1978, the top court, through Justice Krishna Iyer, had penned a verdict which said that all private properties were open for the government to takeover and redistribute for the common good of the people.

Justice Iyer spoke for the minority in the case. However, another five-judge bench in 2001 relied on Justice Iyer’s opinion to say that all private properties were open for redistribution for the common good.

"Not every resource owned by an individual can be considered a ‘material resource of the community’ merely because it meets the qualifier of ‘material needs’," the court said on Tuesday.

The court said that the term ‘distribution’ has a wide connotation and its various forms cannot be exhaustively detailed. However, it said that it in each specific case, the court must determine whether the distribution ‘subserves the common good’.

In addition, the top court has said that Article 31C, before it was amended by the 42nd Constitutional amendment, will continue to remain in force.

Article 31C provides a safe harbour to laws enacted in furtherance of the directive principles of state policies and says that such laws cannot be voided on the premise that they are inconsistent with Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.

The judgement was delivered by a nine-judge bench of the court led by the Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud. A total of seven judges have concurred with the CJI, one judge has penned a partially concurring opinion, and one judge has dissented with the majority view.

At the heart of the issue lay the question of whether private resources can form part of the 'material resources of the community' under Article 39(b) of the Constitution.

Article 39(b), which is a provision under the directive principles of state policy, says that the state shall direct its policy towards securing that the ownership and control of material resources of the community are distributed as best to subserve the common good.

The top court was also slated to examine the constitutionality of Article 31C of the Constitution.

The case was referred to a bench of nine judges in 2002. After being in limbo for nearly 22 years, the top court finally took it up for hearing in April this year.