What does this ruling say about property?

In a majority judgment written by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, the court noted that not all private property can be classified as a “material resource” for public distribution under Article 39(b) of the Constitution. The court clarified that property that serves individual needs cannot be appropriated by the State solely for welfare redistribution.

Also read | Flight scare: why fake calls are untraceable

While Article 39(b) requires an equitable distribution of resources for the common good, the court noted that the State cannot seize private property, especially when it serves private interests, solely to achieve this objective. This decision strengthens property rights.

What sentences does it annul?

The majority ruling overturns previous rulings that expanded the concept of “community material resources” to include private property. In particular, it overturns Justice Krishna Iyer’s minority opinion from 1977. The ruling suggested that the State could treat all private property as community resources for redistribution. Although such appropriation typically follows compensation, the current ruling says previous ones were influenced by socialism, which no longer aligned with the Constitution’s broader role of supporting the government to enforce policies for which it “must be held accountable.” to the electorate.”

How does private property become community property?

The court outlined how this could happen: nationalization, where the state takes control; acquisition, where the State gives fair compensation to the owner; operation of law, where legal processes vest ownership in the state; purchase, where the State buys the property; and donation, where the owner voluntarily donates the property or creates a public trust.

Also read | Why the urban middle class has cut spending

What does this ruling mean for well-being?

It marks a shift toward a market-driven approach, which limits the state’s ability to classify private property as “community resources” for redistribution. Future welfare policies will likely focus on scarce and critical resources essential to public well-being. The ruling suggests the state can adopt more targeted welfare strategies, such as progressive taxation and public schemes, rather than relying on broad interpretations of the law. This will help balance individual property rights with the need for social equity and public good.

Was the decision unanimous?

No. Justice BV Nagarathna wrote a separate judgment criticizing Chandrachud’s view that Krishna Iyer adhered to a particular political ideology (socialism). Nagarathna, on the other hand, attributed Iyer’s decision to the dominant political and economic discourse of the time. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia dissented from the ruling, saying it would limit the legislature’s power to determine what resources can be considered “material resources.” There was no need for such a “preventive determination.”

Also read | What happens if ChatGPT’s AI search engine clicks on users?