https://odishapostepaper.com/edition/5033/orissa-post/page/6
Indian courts, including the Supreme Court, have been deliberating on the definition and scope of private property for more than forty years. One of the cases pending for decades before the Supreme Court pertains to private property. The issue before the Supreme Court is to determine whether “private property” qualifies as “material resources of the community” under Article 39(b) of the Indian Constitution. The case before the Constitution Bench involves petitions from the Property Owners Association (POA) and other relevant stakeholders. The POA argues that private properties cannot be acquired by the state under the constitutional provisions outlined in Articles 39(b) and 39(c).
Let us revisit Article 39(b) and 39(c) to understand the spirit behind the long-pending case. Article 39(b) states that it is the responsibility of the State to ensure that the ownership and control of material resources are so distributed as best to serve the common good. The main objective of the Article is to avoid the concentration of wealth and resources in the hands of a few individuals or entities, and to promote unbiased distribution of property for the benefit of the people. Similarly, Article 39(c) requires the State to take steps to prevent the concentration of wealth and resources in the hands of a small group of people.
Over the years, the courts have witnessed diverse interpretations of private property. Justice Krishna Iyer argued that both public and private resources fall under “material resources of the community” as per Article 39(b). He stressed that excluding private resources from this definition would undermine the Directive Principles of State Policy.
Chief Justice Chandrachud emphasized that the Constitution aims for social transformation and that Article 39(b) should apply to privately held property as well. He also stressed the need to recognize the societal aspect while defining private property.
The POA’s president alleged that the real intention behind incorporating the societal aspects for interpreting private property is to enable the government to acquire private property at undervalued prices and then transfer the same to large developers and other corporate houses.
The advocate representing the petitioners argued that, “If private property was to be considered a “material resource”, the word “private” had to be added and the word “community” removed from Article 39(b)”.
The Solicitor General argued that the definition of private property and whether it comes under the purview of material resources should be left to the wisdom of the legislature.
The legal community remains divided on defining private property, reflecting the complexity of balancing individual rights with the interests of the community. To address the ambiguity and lessen the problem of goal incongruency, one may fall back on Gandhi’s perspective on property. Gandhi shifted the focus of the narrative from property’s ownership to property’s use. Gandhi’s views presented property not merely as a personal asset but as a tool for the benefit of the community.
Gandhi’s views on property are embedded in his principles of Sarvodaya. Sarvodaya means progress for all through non-violence and peaceful cooperation. Gandhi believed that when property is used in ways that do not promote collective welfare, it can lead to distrust and conflict.
In the spirit of Sarvodaya, Gandhi wished that property should be held “in trust” for society. Gandhi was of the view that individuals should be allowed to own property but should be encouraged and motivated to manage it in such a way that it serves society as a whole. Gandhi believed that a Sarvodaya-based interpretation of private property helps reduce socio-economic disparities and promotes equity.
Though Gandhi stressed the relevance of the societal use of private property, he was against the acquisition of property by the State. Gandhi encouraged people to take voluntary responsibility of managing resources with the spirit of maximum good for the maximum number. He was of the view that compulsory and forceful acquisition of property might lead people to come together and revolt against the State.
Gandhi’s view on property is very relevant today for India as it is witnessing the ugly face of inequality. As per Oxfam India, the top 1 percent of the population owns nearly 40.6 percent of the total wealth in India. Such concentration of wealth may often lead to unpleasant display of wealth. One such instance was the mega wedding celebrations by the richest family in the country, which was witnessed by millions of people.
The rising concentration of wealth in the hands of a very small percentage of people, and the decreasing ability of the majority to generate income, provides sufficient grounds for the Supreme Court to consider Gandhi’s view on private property.