SC Restricts State Acquisition of Private Resources
- 05 Nov 2024
On 5th November 2024, the Supreme Court(SC)of India, through a nine-judge Constitution Bench majority, ruled that private resources cannot universally be considered "material resources of the community" for government acquisition aimed at serving public interest.
Key Points
- Judgment Summary: The ruling clarifies that not all privately-owned resources can be claimed by the state for the "common good," marking a shift away from economic doctrines that promote heavy state control over private property.
- Dismissal of Prior Doctrine; Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, authoring the majority opinion, dismissed the interpretation from past rulings that allowed broad state control over private resources, describing it as an outdated economic model.
- Historical Context: The judgment references a 1977 dissent by Justice Krishna Iyer, which argued for greater state control of private resources.
- This interpretation was followed in significant rulings, necessitating this nine-judge review to clarify Article 39(b) of the Constitution.
- India’s Evolving Economic Vision: The court highlighted India’s economic progression from socialism to liberalization and market-based reforms, noting that successive governments have embraced varied economic policies based on evolving national needs rather than adhering to a singular economic ideology.
- Restrictions on Resource Acquisition: While theoretically, certain privately-owned resources could be deemed community resources, the court cautioned against an overbroad interpretation.
- Acquisition should consider factors such as resource scarcity, community impact, and whether the resource's private ownership significantly affects public welfare.
- Attorney General's Argument: Attorney General R. Venkataramani argued that all human-made resources could be seen as community resources, a stance the Chief Justice questioned, pointing to the importance of private property rights.
- Reference to Larger Benches: This ruling addressed petitions filed as far back as 1992, challenging broad state control over private property. These petitions have been repeatedly referred to larger Benches, culminating in this nine-judge ruling.
