DC Edit | Property rights ruling welcome

People’s property rights have been one of the most contested subjects in India ever since Independence. One of the changes made by the very first amendment of the Constitution in 1951 was to allow the government to abolish feudalism in the country. Thereon, the legislature and the Supreme Court have been defining and redefining the scope of property rights at regular intervals. Similarly, the nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court delivered a historic judgment on November 5 which would strengthen people’s property rights and prevent the government from arbitrarily acquiring private property in the name of public good.

Adjudicating a petition on Article 31C, which prevents anyone from challenging the government’s decision to implement the Directive Principles of State Policy on the grounds of such action being in violation of fundamental rights, the Supreme Court in its majority verdict narrowed down the definition of the phrase “material resource of a community”, which was previously believed to have included all private properties.

While keeping the option of acquiring a private property through various means such as nationalisation and acquisition open for the government, the Supreme Court judgment declared that mere public purpose will not be enough to acquire a private property and it must meet “non-exhaustive factors”, like the nature of the specific resources and their characteristics, whether such acquisition was essential for the wellbeing of the community, whether there was scarcity of the resources and the consequences of such resources concentrated in the hands of private players.

The judgment also made scathing remarks against a 1977 minority verdict of Justice Krishna Iyer, where it blurred distinction between public and property. It said the acquisition of private property by the state as the ultimate goal would undermine the values and principles of the constitutional framework.

Though strengthening people's rights, the judgment will open floodgates of litigation as it made the grounds for acquisition subjective to scarcity and other factors. Governments, therefore, should brace up delayed implementation of projects for the want of land acquisition.