Where is this tradition that some stay awake and others sleep? The night belongs to everyone, so everyone should sleep. A case from 30 years ago can be understood with the help of this poem by ‘Danish’ poet Madan Mohan Mishra. Which will decide the status and direction of the decades-long dispute related to social justice and the government’s authority over private property in India.
The issue is one of property distribution. In light of Madan Mohan Mishra’s poetry, the question is whether everyone has equal rights in the “night” or whether one’s “sleep” is so important that it does not matter whether the other is awake. Also, to give everyone a chance to sleep, can sleeping people be woken up?
A question about which a decision must be made –The question is: can the government take control of the private property of any person or community for the good of society? The nine-judge bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud has completed the hearing and since Justice Chandrachud is retiring on November 10, the decision may come any time.
Inequality situation in India –According to a 2023 Oxfam report, the richest 5 percent of India’s population had at least 60 percent of the country’s total wealth, while the poorest 50 percent of the country’s population, who lived In poverty, he had only 3 percent of the country’s wealth. Fighting to survive.
How this gap between rich and poor can be bridged, When the political debate between the BJP and the Congress in the Lok Sabha elections was going on, a nine-judge constitutional bench of the Supreme Court was hearing the question whether the government can take possession. of someone’s private property and distribute it among common people or not?
Root of the dispute – Interpretation of article 39B
The root of this dispute over the distribution of property lies in Article 39B of the Constitution. Different courtrooms have been involved in the interpretation of this article. In reality, 39B comes in the fourth part of the Constitution.
This part of the Constitution is called DPSP (Directive Principles of State Policy). As the name suggests, the government is not obliged to implement what is said in the DPSP. This is just a clue, considering the policy required by the Constitution.
Article 39B states that the State must formulate such policy to ensure that ownership and control of the people’s resources are distributed in such a way as to maximize the well-being of the common people.
The interpretation of 39B has been complicated for almost five decades. The bottom line is: what is a ‘community resource’ and what is not?
Year 1977 – Decision of 7 judges
It was 1977 when the Supreme Court issued an important decision on the matter. The case was heard in court on behalf of the Government of Karnataka against Ranganatha Reddy. A seven-judge court ruled with a 4-3 majority that a person’s personal resources cannot be considered “community resources.”
The minority decision by Justice Krishna Iyer (now retired), one of the three judges who had objections to this decision, became very relevant and influential in later years. Justice Iyer had said that even privately owned resources should be considered community resources.
He gave an interesting argument for this. The logic is that everything valuable or used in the world is a material resource. And since the individual (who owns it) is also part of the community, his resource must also be seen as part of the community.
Year 1983 – Decision of 5 judges
In 1983, a similar issue was once again raised before a five-judge bench in the case “Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company v. Bharat Coking Coal.” The question is whether the nationalization of coal mines and their associated coke oven plants by the Central Government through law is justified or not.
Then, based on Justice Iyer’s decision, a five-judge bench declared the central government’s law on nationalization correct. Furthermore, it was also clarified that Article 39B of the Constitution gives scope to convert private property into public property.
Year 1996 – Decision of 9 judges
The year 1996 came. A case called Mafatlal Industries Limited vs. Government of India was pending before the Supreme Court. Justice Paripurnan also agreed with what was said in the case of Justice Iyer and Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing regarding the interpretation of 39B.
How did the recent controversy reach the Supreme Court?
This matter reached the Supreme Court in connection with a 1976 law of the Maharashtra government and the amendments made therein.
In 1976, the Government of Maharashtra enacted a law called the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act (MHADA). Under this, there was a dream to eliminate the problem related to the old and dilapidated buildings of the city.
The provision contained in the new law was that those buildings that are now becoming unsafe over time, but still some poor families live there as tenants, will have to pay a cess (a kind of tax) to the Repair and Reconstruction of Buildings. Mumbai. In order for buildings to be repaired and renovated, the tax will need to be paid.
There was no problem up to this point. The problem occurred in the year 1986. This year, the Maharashtra government made two amendments to the law using section 39B. The goal of one of them was to give people in need the land and buildings where they live.
The second amendment was that the state government can acquire those buildings and lands on which cess (tax) is imposed since the previous law. It is possible that 70 percent of the people who live there will request that the government take over.
As a result, the owners of these properties in Mumbai challenged the amendment to the law of 1976. The Mumbai Property Owners Association challenged the amendment in the Bombay High Court.
Their contention was that the Maharashtra government’s amendment violates the right to equality of owners, i.e. those to whom property belongs, under Article 14 of the Constitution. However, the Bombay High Court held that the law made under Article 39B cannot be challenged citing the right to equality.
Finally, in December 1992, the HOA filed an appeal with the Supreme Court and appealed the High Court’s decision. The basic question in the Supreme Court was whether private property resources or rather private property can be considered a community resource under Article 39B of the Constitution or not.
In 2001, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court heard the matter and sent it to a larger bench because a five-judge bench had already given a decision in this regard in the Sanjeev Kok decision of 1983. A 7-judge bench He also heard the case the following year, but was also unable to get it to its destination, the case was sent to 9 judges.
Ultimately, a nine-judge constitutional bench, including 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 Justice Augustine George Masih heard the case in detail from April 23.
After a five-day hearing on May 1, the decision was reserved. Will a Supreme Court decision now make it clear whether any community or organization has any rights over private property or not? In a way, this decision will give a new twist to the fight for social justice.
