Join Us 
National News: A landmark judgment had been delivered by the Supreme Court of India’s nine-judge bench with Chief Justice DY Chandrachud holding that not all properties belonging to a citizen are a “community resource” under Article 39(b) of the Constitution.
The Constitution Bench headed by the CJI said that the state government can’t acquire all private properties, it can only acquire a few. With this decision, the 9-judge bench has overturned the historic decision of the Supreme Court in 1978.
The Supreme Court gave this judgment in a subject matter of law which relates to Article 39 (B) of the Constitution. This particular article deals with the taking away of private property and property by the state as well as redistribution on ‘public good’.
The judgment delivered on Tuesday was meant to clarify as far as what extent private property can be defined as common good. To find a middle ground between personal rights over property and the greater good of society.
In a decision 46 years old, dismissed
This has made a milestone judgment by a nine-member bench of the Supreme Court of the nation that has undid half a century’s judgment inspired from the nationalisation program taken in the name of the then prime minister by Indira Gandhi. During this judgement, which made the law allow the ideal of the socialistic aim wherein one’s private properties can be redistributed. With the present decision, this time, again the same does not serve the purpose or holds significance. This one quoted what these intellectuals of their time had said for example one by Karl Marx in which his sayings helped to construct judgments inspired upon the social-economy idea. But for which the democracies had been discredited later in due course.
It may be noted that in 1977 a seven-judge bench held that by a majority of 4:3 that not all property which is owned privately fall within the fold of material resources of the community. However, in his dissenting judgment Justice Krishna Iyer held that both public as well as private resources fall within the fold of the “material resources of the community” under Article 39(b). In his separate judgment, Nagarathna Justice differed with Chief Justice on his observations over the judgment by Justice Iyer.
Article 39B of the Constitution provides that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community shall be so distributed as best to meet the common good and also to promote and distribute its benefits equitably to everybody.
What did Centre have to say?
In the case, the Union Government and the Maharashtra Government had especially referred to a mindless and wholesale national redistribution of material resources of private citizens to be juvenile. They had also especially relied upon the high ideals enumerated by the founding father of the Constitution, BR Ambedkar who believed that there must be economic democracy and the people must be free to choose things through their representatives.
The Union Government and the Maharashtra Government had pointed out the difference between a welfare state compared to the Robinhood-style economics advocated by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi. The court did appreciate this distinction and carried on the idea of a welfare state while ensuring that the progressive and efficient state interventions for socio-economic up-liftment are not interfered with. Interestingly, even the Government of West Bengal supported the arguments of the Union of India and Maharashtra.
Rahul Gandhi’s views on the issue
The judgment in question is pertinent in the context because the Congress leader Rahul Gandhi has been canvassing a simplistic proposition of lock, stock and barrel national wealth distribution founded upon the ante dated philosophy absolutely bereft of any principle of economics.
