Context:
A 9-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court is hearing the question whether ‘material resources of the community’ includes privately owned resources in its ambit under Article 39(b) of the Constitution.
More on News:
- The case: The SC is hearing a case challenging the insertion of Chapter VIII-A in the 1986 amendment to the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (MHADA) by The Property Owners’ Association in Mumbai claiming that the provisions violate the property owners’ Right to Equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Constitution Bench:
- Article 145(3): It provides for the setting up of a Constitution Bench comprising a minimum of five judges for deciding a case involving a “substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution”, or for hearing any reference under Article 143, which deals with the power of the President to consult the SC.
- Other scenarios:
- If two or three-judge Benches of the Supreme Court have delivered conflicting judgments on the same point of law.
- If a later three-judge Bench of the SC wants to reconsider a judgment delivered by a former Bench with the same strength it refer the matter to a larger bench for reconsideration of the previous judgment.
- Notable examples:
-
- The largest-ever Constitution Bench of 13 judges delivered the judgement in the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case.
- Recent Example being the Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (retd) v. Union of India case, a nine-judge bench recognised the right to privacy as one guaranteed under the Constitution.
|
-
- Article 31C of the Constitution: laws enacted in furtherance of DPSP could not be challenged on the grounds that they violated the right to equality (Article 14) or Right to Freedom (Article 19)
- Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (MHADA) was enacted to address the problem of old, dilapidated buildings housing (poor) tenants despite becoming increasingly unsafe.
- Cessed properties: MHADA imposed a cess on the buildings occupants, which would be paid to the Mumbai Building Repair and Reconstruction Board (MBRRB) to oversee repair and restoration projects.
- The 1986 Amendment: By invoking Article 39(b),
Right to Property:
- A former Fundamental right: The right to property was recognized initially as a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31 of the Constitution.
- Legal right: In 1978, through the 44th Amendment Act significantly altered the right to property by removing it as a fundamental right and placing it under Article 300A as a legal right.
|
-
- Added Section 1A to MHADA: It aims to execute plans for acquiring lands and buildings, in order to transfer them to “needy persons” and the “occupiers of such lands or buildings”.
- Added Chapter VIII-A: It contains provisions allowing the state government to acquire cessed buildings (and the land they are built on) if 70% of the occupants make such a request.
Legal Interpretations of Article 39(b):State of Karnataka v Shri Ranganatha Reddy 1977: A seven-judge Bench of the SC by a 4:3 majority, held that privately owned resources did not fall within the ambit of “material resources of the community”.
- Minority opinion of Justice Krishna Iyer: He was of the opinion that privately owned resources must also be considered material resources of the community as excluding ownership of private resources from the provisions of Article 39(b) is to hide its very purpose of redistribution the socialist way.
Article 39 in Constitution of India: Part IV titled “Directive Principles of State Policy” (DPSP)
- (a)that the citizens, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means to livelihood;
- (b) that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to sub serve the common good;
- (c)that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment;
- (d) that there is equal pay for equal work for both men and women;
- (e) that the health and strength of workers, men and women, and the tender age of children are not abused and that citizens are not forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their age or strength
|
- Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company v Bharat Coking Coal (1983): A 5 judge bench upheld central legislation nationalising coal mines concurring with the minority opinion of Justice Iyer.
- It held that the provision considers the transformation of wealth from private-ownership into public ownership and is not confined to that which is already public-owned
- Mafatlal Industries Ltd v Union of India (1996): Justice Paripoornan concurred with Justice Iyer opinion held that ‘material resources’ will include natural or physical resources which is movable or immovable property and includes all private and public sources of meeting material needs,not merely confined to public possessions.
April 25, 2024
