Where is the tradition that some people are awake and some people are sleeping, the night belongs to everyone, so everyone should sleep – A 30-year-old case can be understood with the help of this poem by poet Madan Mohan Mishra “The Dane”. This will determine the shape and direction of India’s decades-long battle for social justice and whether the government has private property rights.
The issue is one of property distribution. Based on Madan Mohan Mishra’s poem, the question is whether everyone has equal rights in the “night” or whether one’s “sleep” is so important that whether the other is awake or asleep Clothes are not important? Things get more complicated.
Understand it this way.
There is a question to be decided—— The question is, can the government control the private property of any person or community – i.e. your property – for the good of society? A nine-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Chandrachud has completed the hearing. Since Justice Chandrachud will retire on November 10, the decision can be taken at any time.
Inequality in India –According to a 2023 Oxfam report, the richest 5% of India’s population own at least 60% of the country’s total wealth, while the bottom 50% of the country’s population live in poverty and own only 3% of the country’s wealth. . Struggling to survive.
How to bridge the gap between rich and poor, when the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Congress are engaged in political debate in the Lok Sabha elections, nine constitutional judges of the Supreme Court are hearing this question: whether the government can take over power. Should someone’s private property be distributed to the common people?
Source of dispute – interpretation of section 39B
The root cause of this property distribution dispute lies in Article 39B of the Constitution. Different judges of the court have been in dispute over the interpretation of this article. In fact, 39B falls under Part IV of the Constitution.
This part of the constitution is called the DPSP (Directive Principles of State Policy). As its name suggests, the government has no obligation to enforce the provisions of the DPSP. This is just a reminder to keep in mind the policies required by the Constitution.
Article 39B stipulates that the State shall formulate policies to ensure that ownership and control of resources by the people is distributed in such a way as to maximize the welfare of the people.
For nearly fifty years, the explanation of 39B has been complicated. The bottom line is – what is a “community resource” and what is not?
1977 – Decision of 7 judges
In 1977, the Supreme Court made an important decision on this issue. The case was heard before the court as Government of Karnataka v. Ranganatha Reddy. The seven-judge bench ruled by a 4-3 majority that a person’s personal resources cannot be considered “community resources”.
Justice Krishna Iyer (now retired) was one of the three judges who dissented from this ruling, and his minority ruling became very important and influential in later years. Justice Iyer had said that even privately owned resources should be considered as community resources.
He makes an interesting argument about this. The logic is that everything of value or use in the world is a material resource. Since the individual (who owns it) is also part of the community, his resources should also be considered part of the community.
1983 – Decision of 5 judges
In 1983, in Sanjiv Coke Manufacturing Company v. Bharat Coking Coal, a five-judge bench was again faced with a similar problem. The question is whether it is reasonable for the central government to nationalize coal mines and related coke oven plants in accordance with the law?
Subsequently, following the judgment of Justice Iyer, a five-judge bench declared that the central government’s law on nationalization was correct. In addition, it is also clarified that Article 39B of the Constitution stipulates the scope of conversion of private property into public property.
1996 – Decision of 9 judges
1996 has arrived. The Supreme Court is hearing a case titled Mafatlal Industries Limited v. Government of India. Justice Paripurnan also agreed with Justice Iyer and Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing regarding the interpretation of 39B.
How did the latest controversy reach the Supreme Court?
The case relates to the Maharashtra government’s 1976 law and its amendments and was brought before the Supreme Court.
In 1976, the Maharashtra government enacted a law called the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act (MHADA). Under this, people saw the dream of solving the problem of old and dilapidated housing in the city.
The new law states that buildings that have become unsafe over time but still have some poor families living there as tenants will have to pay a cess (a tax) to the Mumbai Building Maintenance and Reconstruction Authority Pay building taxes so that building repairs and renovations can be made.
So far no problem. The problem occurred in 1986. This year, the Maharashtra government introduced two amendments to the law using Section 39B. One of the purposes is to provide needy people with land and buildings for them to live in.
The second amendment is that the state government can acquire buildings and land on which land tax has been imposed since the previous law. It’s possible that 70% of the people living there are asking for a government takeover.
As a result, the owners of these properties in Mumbai challenged the amendment to the 1976 law. The Mumbai Homeowners Association challenged the amendment in the Bombay High Court.
They claimed that the Maharashtra government’s amendment violated the equality rights of property owners (i.e. those to whom the property belongs) under Article 14 of the Constitution. However, the Bombay High Court held that the law made under Section 39B cannot be challenged on the basis of right to equality.
Finally, in December 1992, the homeowners association filed a motion with the Supreme Court to appeal the High Court’s decision. The basic question before the Supreme Court was whether private resources or rather private property could be considered as community resources under Article 39B of the Constitution?
In 2001, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court heard the case and sent it to a larger bench as the five-judge bench had already ruled on it in the 1983 Sanjeev Kok judgment. The following year, the case was also heard by a bench of 7 judges, but was also unable to bring it to its destination and the case was sent to 9 judges.
Finally, a nine-judge Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice BV Nagarathna, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice JB Pardiwala, Justice Manoj Mishra, Justice Rajesh Bindal, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Judge Augustine George Masih heard the case in detail from April 23.
The decision was reserved after a five-day hearing on May 1. Now a Supreme Court decision will clarify whether any community or organization has rights to private property? In a way, this decision will bring a new twist in the fight for social justice.
Chatte-batte from the same plate…Mayawati pushes Congress BJP into corner over comments on Baba Saheb