What is the news editorial?

• • The Supreme Court of India has recently commenced hearings on a critical question with far-reaching implications: can private property be acquired and redistributed under the garb of “material resources of the community”? This editorial explores the legal and policy issues at stake, analyzing them from a UPSC Polity perspective.

Background:

• • The case originated from a challenge to the amended Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act (MHADA) of 1986. MHADA aimed to address dilapidated buildings in Mumbai by potentially acquiring them for reconstruction and transfer to needy occupants. Property owners contested this as a violation of their right to equality under Article 14.

Legal Framework:

• • Shifting Status of Right to Property: Initially, the right to property was a fundamental right (Articles 19(1)(f) and 31). However, the 44th Amendment (1978) downgraded it to a constitutional right under Article 300A. This article guarantees protection from property deprivation without legal authorization, implying fair compensation.
• • Directive Principles and Article 39(b): DPSPs like Article 39(b) guide the government in policymaking but aren’t directly enforceable. Article 39(b) mandates the state to promote equitable distribution of “material resources of the community” for the common good.
• • Article 31C and the 9th Schedule: This article protects certain laws enacted to implement DPSPs from challenges based on fundamental rights like equality (Article 14). The 9th Schedule includes specific laws, like land reforms, that cannot be challenged on these grounds.

Key Legal Interpretations:

• • State of Karnataka vs Shri Ranganatha Reddy Case (1977): This case held that privately owned resources didn’t fall under “material resources of the community” (Article 39(b)). However, Justice Krishna Iyer dissented, arguing that private resources should be considered for equitable distribution.
• • Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company vs Bharat Coking Coal Case (1983): The court, adopting Justice Iyer’s view, upheld the nationalization of coal mines, acknowledging private resources as part of “material resources of the community.”
• • Mafatlal Industries Ltd vs Union of India Case (1996): A larger bench was constituted to further interpret Article 39(b). Relying on previous judgments, the court held that “material resources” encompass both public and private resources, paving the way for potential redistribution.

About Right to Property:

• Before 1978: The right to property was a fundamental right protected by the Constitution, but not specifically under Article 31. It was an implied right arising from various articles like Article 19(1)(f) which guaranteed the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property.
  There wasn’t a single dedicated article for the right to property, but it was considered a fundamental right based on these other provisions.

• After 1978: The 44th Amendment Act removed the right to property from the list of fundamental rights. This means it no longer enjoys the same level of protection as fundamental rights like the right to life and liberty.
  Current Status:

Despite not being a fundamental right anymore, the right to property remains a:

• • Human Right: It’s recognized as a human right in a welfare state.

• • Constitutional Right: It’s still protected under Article 300A, which essentially says the state can’t take away your property without following legal procedures and (implicitly) providing fair compensation.

So, while the specific article protecting the right to property changed (from implied right to Article 300A), the core principle of safeguarding property rights remains a part of the Indian legal framework.

Current Situation and UPSC Relevance:

The Supreme Court’s upcoming decision will be crucial in clarifying the scope of government power regarding private property acquisition. Here’s how it’s relevant for UPSC:

• • Balancing Rights and Public Welfare: The case highlights the delicate balance between individual property rights and the government’s responsibility to address social needs.

• • Judicial Review and Interpretation: The court’s interpretation of Article 39(b) will be a significant example of judicial review, demonstrating how the judiciary interprets constitutional provisions and balances competing interests.

• • Property Rights and Development: The verdict will impact government’s ability to acquire land for infrastructure projects or social welfare schemes. Striking a balance between development and property rights is a key governance challenge.

• • By understanding these legal intricacies and policy considerations, UPSC aspirants can develop a well-rounded perspective on Indian Polity and analyze issues related to property rights, land acquisition, and the role of DPSPs.

Mains Questions:

Model Answer:

Arguments For:

• • Social Justice: Redistribution can promote social justice by addressing wealth inequality and ensuring equitable access to resources, aligning with the ideals of a welfare state.
  • Directive Principles: Article 39(b) of the DPSPs mandates the state to ensure equitable distribution of material resources, potentially empowering the government to acquire private property for this purpose.
  • Public Good: In certain cases, acquiring private property might be necessary for the public good, such as slum rehabilitation projects or infrastructure development.

Arguments Against:

• • Fundamental Right (Indirect): Though no longer a fundamental right, Article 300A protects individuals from arbitrary deprivation of property.
  • Disincentive for Investment: The threat of potential acquisition could discourage investment and economic growth.
  • Due Process and Compensation: Any acquisition of property must adhere to due process and provide fair compensation, which can be a complex and lengthy process.

Model Answer:

• • State of Karnataka vs Shri Ranganatha Reddy Case (1977): This case initially held that privately owned resources didn’t fall under Article 39(b). However, Justice Krishna Iyer’s dissenting opinion argued for including private resources for redistribution.
• • Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company vs Bharat Coking Coal Case (1983): The Court, adopting Justice Iyer’s view, acknowledged private resources as part of “material resources of the community,” paving the way for potential acquisition under DPSPs.
• • Mafatlal Industries Ltd vs Union of India Case (1996): This case emphasized a broader interpretation of “material resources,” including both public and private resources, further complicating the issue of private property acquisition.

Remember: These are just sample answers. It’s important to further research and refine your responses based on your own understanding and perspective. Read entire UPSC Current Affairs.

Share and Enjoy !

Shares