IN A majority 7:2 ruling, the Supreme Court on Tuesday held that States are not empowered under the Constitution to take over all privately-owned resources for distribution to serve the “common good”. A nine-judge bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, however, said States can stake claim over private properties in certain cases. The majority verdict pronounced by the CJI overruled Justice Krishna Iyer’s previous ruling that all privately owned resources can be acquired by the State for distribution under Article 39(b) of the Constitution. The CJI wrote for himself andsix other judges on the benchwhich decided the vexed legal question on whether privateproperties can be considered“material resources of the community” under Article 39(b)and taken over by State authorities for distribution to subserve the “common good”.

 

It overturned several verdictsthat had adopted the socialist theme and ruled that Statescan take over all private properties for common good. Justice BV Nagarathna partially disagreed with the majority judgement penned by theCJI, while Justice SudhanshuDhulia dissented on all aspects. The top court had, in the MinervaMillscaseof1980,declaredtwo provisions of the 42nd Amendment, which prevented any constitutional amendmentfrombeing“calledinquestion in any court on any ground” and accorded precedence to the Directive Principles of State Policy over the fundamental rights of individuals, as unconstitutional. Article 31C protects a law made underArticles 39(b) and (c) empoweringtheStatetotakeovermaterialresourcesofthecommunity,including private properties, for distribution to subserve the common good.

 

The topcourt hadheard 16 petitions, including the lead petition filed by the Mumbai-based Property Owners’ Association (POA) in 1992. The POA has opposed Chapter VIIIA of theMaharashtra HousingandArea Development Authority (MHADA) Act. Inserted in 1986, the chapter empowers State authorities to acquire cessed buildings and the land on which those are built if 70 per cent of the occupants makesucharequestforrestorationpurposes. TheMHADAAct was enacted inpursuance of Article 39(b), which is part of the Directive Principles of State Policy and makes it obligatory forthe State to create a policy towards securing “that theownershipandcontrolofthematerial resources of the community are so distributedasbesttosubservethecommon good”.