The government cannot acquire every private property; the Supreme Court gave a historic decision

The Supreme Court has given a historic verdict in several land-related cases. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court gave an important decision on the matter of whether the government can acquire private property for public interests. A 9-member Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has said in its majority decision that the government cannot take away all private property. The bench ruled by an 8-1 majority.

 

The bench of 9 judges pronounced the verdict

 

A 9-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud has ruled by a majority of 8-1. Apart from the Chief Justice, the bench included Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, Justice Manoj Mishra, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice BV Nagarathna, Justice JB Pardiwala, Justice Rajesh Bindal, and Justice AG Masih. The CJI, while delivering a majority verdict in the 9-judge bench case, set aside the previous judgment of Justice Krishna Iyer, which held that all privately owned resources can be acquired by the state.

 

The Supreme Court does not agree with Justice Iyer’s view

 

The Supreme Court has said that the purpose of India’s economy is to deal with the challenges of developing countries, not to be bound by any one economic structure. The court admitted that due to the changed economic policies in the last 30 years, India has become the fastest-growing economy in the world.

 

The Supreme Court does not agree with Justice Iyer’s view that private property can also be considered community property. The Supreme Court clarified that the goal of India’s economy is not to follow any particular economic model. Rather, it aims to meet the challenges that come with being a developing country.

 

The Supreme Court has ruled on 16 petitions related to private property. Which includes the petition of property owners in Mumbai. The case pertains to a 1986 Maharashtra Act amendment that empowered the government to take over private buildings for repair and safety purposes. The petitioners say that this amendment is discriminatory. CJI DY Chandrachud pointed out that there are three judgments in this case: his and six other judges’ partial concurrence and Justice Dhulia’s dissent.