A nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court is hearing a case to decide whether common property resources would include privately owned properties under the ambit of the Indian constitution. But what does this mean?
A quick explainer by our Legal Research Lead @Anmolg_law

The Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act of 1976 includes provisions that would allow state agencies to acquire certain “cessed properties” – old and dilapidated buildings in Mumbai – for restoration purposes.

These provisions are to be enacted to implement Article 39(b) of the Constitution. A part of the Directive Principles of State Policy, 39(b) says that the state is obligated to ensure that ownership of community resources is distributed to best serve the common good.

But what kind of properties are being talked about in the ongoing case? The crux of this case is the meaning of the phrase “Material Resource,” as understood in Article 39(b).

In 1977, justice Krishna Iyer conceptualised a sweeping definition of the phrase, linking it to nationalisation–a process by which the state could acquire control over both production and product. But he left it to the Parliament to decide on any law for the same.

Counsels in the present Supreme Court state have rejected this interpretation, saying that we do not live in a “Marxian state.” The bench however brought up the example of privately owned mines as such a resource.
Read more Here.

At the heart of this case is the current right to property that states that an individual cannot be deprived of their property except by due process. Once a fundamental right under Article 31, the right now exists in a modified form in Article 300A.(7/12)
Article 31 : Part iii

Legal processes such as land acquisition and distribution both involve the right to property. The current legal regime is a mixture between consent-based acquisition (LARR 2013) and compulsory acquisition for industries.

Arguments in the court have moved on to discuss the validity of Article 31C, which says that laws made in pursuance of Article 39(b) cannot be challenged on the basis of fundamental rights enshrined in Article 14 and 19.

Upholding Article 31C would mean that the State can enact policies that prioritise the common good over individual rights – something that is already well in practice through many laws today.

Regardless of the outcome of the final judgement, state policy must adequately balance the individual right to property with maintenance of community property resources.
The Bench has already referred to the Gandhian view, where property is viewed as a public trust. (11/12)
https://scobserver.in/reports/nature-of-private-property-day-2-nine-judge-bench-says-its-essential-to-decide-the-position-of-article-31c/

Arguments will continue today. Follow us for more updates. To read our other legal and policy analyses, check out our latest reports at https://landconflictwatch.org/all-publications…