SC on private property: What it means for welfare

livemint.com:

Subscribe to enjoy similar stories. The Supreme Court has ruled that not all private property can be considered “material resources of the community" under the Constitution. This has implications for property rights, restricting the state’s ability to seize private property for public welfare.

In a majority judgement authored by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, the court noted that not all private property can be classed as a “material resource" for public distribution under Article 39(b) of the Constitution. The court clarified that property serving individual needs cannot be appropriated by the state solely for welfare redistribution.

Also read | Flight scare: Why hoax calls are untraceable While Article 39(b) calls for equitable distribution of resources for the common good, the court noted that private property, especially when it serves private interests, cannot be seized by the state just to achieve this goal. This decision strengthens property rights. The majority ruling overrules past judgments that extended the concept of “material resources of the community" to include private property.

Notably, it overrules Justice Krishna Iyer’s 1977 minority opinion. The ruling suggested that the state could treat all private property as community resources for redistribution. Although such appropriation normally follows compensation, the present ruling said the earlier ones were influenced by socialism, which no longer aligned with the Constitution’s broader role to support the government to enforce policies for which it “owes accountability to the electorate." The court outlined how this could occur: nationalization, where the state takes control; acquisition, where the state gives fair compensation to the owner; operation