Supreme Court of India Rules on State Control Over Private Properties
In a significant ruling, a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India decided that states cannot take over all private properties to serve the common good. The decision was led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, who stated that private properties do not automatically qualify as ‘material resources of the community’ under Article 39(b) of the Constitution.
Understanding Article 39(b)
Article 39(b) of the Indian Constitution mandates that the state should ensure the distribution of material resources to best serve the common good. However, the court clarified that this does not mean all private properties can be taken over by the state.
Majority and Dissenting Opinions
The majority opinion, supported by Justices Hrishikesh Roy, JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, SC Sharma, and Augustine George Masih, overturned previous rulings since 1978 that allowed states to take over private properties. Justice BV Nagarathna partially disagreed, while Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia dissented entirely.
Background of the Case
This verdict arose from petitions dating back to 1992, which were referred to the nine-judge bench in 2002. The core issue was whether privately owned resources fall under the ‘material resources of the community’ as per Article 39(b).
Doubts Revealed
Supreme Court of India -: The Supreme Court of India is the highest court in the country. It makes important decisions about laws and rights that affect everyone in India.
Private properties -: Private properties are things like land or buildings that belong to individuals or companies, not the government.
Article 39(b) -: Article 39(b) is a part of the Indian Constitution. It talks about how resources should be used for the good of everyone in the community.
Chief Justice DY Chandrachud -: Chief Justice DY Chandrachud is the head judge of the Supreme Court of India. He leads the court in making important legal decisions.
Majority opinion -: The majority opinion is the decision agreed upon by most of the judges in a court case. It becomes the final ruling of the court.
Dissent -: Dissent means to disagree. In court, when a judge dissents, it means they do not agree with the majority opinion.
