<img srcset="https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/ace/ws/240/cpsprodpb/d175/live/19acdb90-9c45-11ef-82c3-45a801b7330b.jpg.webp 240w, https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/ace/ws/320/cpsprodpb/d175/live/19acdb90-9c45-11ef-82c3-45a801b7330b.jpg.webp 320w, https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/ace/ws/480/cpsprodpb/d175/live/19acdb90-9c45-11ef-82c3-45a801b7330b.jpg.webp 480w, https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/ace/ws/624/cpsprodpb/d175/live/19acdb90-9c45-11ef-82c3-45a801b7330b.jpg.webp 624w, https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/ace/ws/800/cpsprodpb/d175/live/19acdb90-9c45-11ef-82c3-45a801b7330b.jpg.webp 800w" sizes="(min-width: 1008px) 760px, 100vw" alt="Supreme Court
” width=”800″ height=”449″ src=”https://www.bbc.com/marathi/articles/aspect-ratio:800 / 449″ class=”bbc-139onq”/>Photo Caption Supreme CourtArticle information
The Supreme Court gave an important verdict on Tuesday. In this verdict, the Supreme Court has given an important decision that the government cannot take over all private property.
A bench of 9 judges of the Supreme Court has given this verdict. Through this judgment, the Supreme Court itself has reversed its judgment in 1978.
This bench of 9 judges was presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. This bench gave this verdict by a majority of 7-2.
Chief Justice D. Y. Chandrachud, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice Manoj Mishra, Justice Rajesh Bindal, Justice J. B. Pardiwala, Justice S. C. Sharma and Justice Augustine George Masih concurred in the verdict.
Justice B. V. Nagaratna partially agrees with this conclusion. However, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia disagreed on all aspects of the judgment.
The Supreme Court has said in the judgment that “every private property cannot be considered as public property. Only certain properties can be treated as public resources by the government and can be used by the common people.”
This special bench of the Supreme Court has set aside the judgment given by Justice Krishna Iyer in 1978. In the judgment given by Justice Iyer, it was said that state governments can take over all private property.
The Chief Justice said that the old judgment was motivated by certain economic and socialistic ideologies.
However, the State Governments can lay claim to the same assets or resources, which are held for community or public interest.
In general, a bench of 9 judges is rarely seen. So far only 17 cases have been tried before this type of bench.
Such a bench is generally appointed to adjudicate cases involving issues of constitutional importance.
Ever since the country gained independence, there has been a debate over private property and its possession.
In the recently held Lok Sabha elections, this issue was also much discussed. During this election, Prime Minister Narendra Modi alleged that the Congress wants to take over the property of the common man and distribute it.
Of course, the Congress party did not make any such claim in its manifesto.
Article 39B of the Constitution
According to Article 39 (b) of the Constitution of India, the ‘wealth or resources of society’ should be distributed in such a way that they benefit all. Precautions in this regard should be taken in government policies.
Government should plan policies based on this principle. Using this, the government has enacted many laws to control property.
Andhyarujina, a senior lawyer involved in the case, said, “This judgment will not only affect laws related to property but also other laws.”
Nipun Saxena, another lawyer involved in the case, said, “Various laws have already been framed to fulfill the objectives of the Constitution. For example, nationalization of coal, fixing prices of essential commodities, etc. That’s why this verdict will have a huge impact.”
Also Read These News:
Right to property
To understand this complex issue, let’s delve into a little history. The right to property is considered a fundamental right in the Constitution of India.
According to Article 19(1)(f), all citizens have the right to own, manage and sell property.
However, Article 31 empowered the government to acquire property for “public purposes”.
On the one hand, over time the government made several amendments to the constitution to protect its right to seize property.
On the other hand, the Judiciary has given many landmark judgments to protect the property rights of citizens.
In 1978, the Janata Party was in power at the Centre. This government removed the right to property from the fundamental rights and included it in the constitutional rights.
Constitutional rights are less protected than fundamental rights.
At present the right to property is only a constitutional right under Article 300A.
Along with this, there are many other laws like the Land Acquisition Act, which empower the government to acquire property under various circumstances.
The issue of property acquisition has always been controversial. In 2013, the Congress-led UPA government tried to introduce a new land acquisition law. Then they had to face a lot of opposition.
Similarly, the BJP-led NDA government also wanted to change this law. But they did not succeed in doing so.
What is the current case?
The present case relates to the amendments made by the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) in the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1986.
Among these reforms, the Bombay Building Repair and Reconstruction Board under the state government was allowed to take over some old buildings and properties.
The owners of these buildings were not repairing them, not maintaining them and they were on the verge of collapse. Hence this permission was given.
This amendment in the Act empowered the Board to repair and re-erect the old buildings. After this, the board could hand over the possession of these buildings to the cooperative committee of the tenants living there.
The scheme was applicable to buildings, which are at least 60 years old and pay taxes to the government.
By 1997, there were over 15,000 such buildings in Maharashtra.
The Property Owners Association (POA), representing 28,000 house owners in Mumbai, had challenged this law in the Bombay High Court in 1991. But the court rejected his plea.
Then in 1992, this organization approached the Supreme Court.
What did both sides argue?
The house owners argued that these private properties or buildings were not community resources. At the same time, it is not that these properties are being taken over for the benefit of the common people.
Apart from this, he also said that the compensation given by the government is very less.
However, the Maharashtra government and the housing authority said that this step was taken to protect the interests of the common people.
In view of that, this law was brought by the Congress government. But the coalition government of Shiv Sena (Shinde) and BJP has also supported this law.
The government was saying that there is a huge housing problem in Mumbai. The landlords were not renovating these buildings as they did not have the option of shifting to another place. That is why this law was necessary.
Finally in 2002 the matter was transferred to a bench of 9 judges.
Why is this result important?
This judgment will not only affect this law in Maharashtra; This verdict will also affect when and to what extent private property can be taken over by any government organization or department in the country.
However, the government can still acquire property under laws such as the Land Acquisition Act 2013.
Article 31C of the Constitution introduced by Indira Gandhi states that if property is acquired for the benefit of common people, it does not violate the fundamental rights of the Constitution like equality.
This clause was implemented in 1969 after the court annulled the decision of nationalization of banks.
After this, in 1976, Indira Gandhi’s government tried to expand the scope of Article 31C. But the Supreme Court rejected it.
(Publication from Collective Newsroom for the BBC.)
