what-s-the-marxist-interpretation-of-wealth-redistribution-discussed-by-sc

The Supreme Court of India said that Justice VR Krishna Iyer's 1977 interpretation of Article 39(b) of the Constitution was influenced by Marxist ideology; it suggested that private properties could be viewed as 'material resources' of the community, thus eligible for redistribution for the broader common good.

The apex court said that it would be diverging from the same interpretation.

 

In a recent hearing, the Supreme Court engaged in an important discussion about the interpretation of wealth redistribution, concerning private property and its relationship to the common good.

 

The nine-judge bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, dove into the nuanced understanding of whether privately-owned resources could be considered as "material resources of the community" under Article 39(b) of the Constitution.

 

What does Article 39 in the Constitution of India say?

 

Concisely, Article 39 outlines certain principles of policy to be followed by the State, including directing its policy towards securing the right to an adequate means of livelihood for citizens and distributing the ownership and control of material resources to serve the common good.

The Article states:

Article 39. Certain principles of policy to be followed by the State

“The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing -

 

(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;

 

[In article 39 of the Constitution, for clause (f), the following clause shall be substituted through Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976]

 

(f)that children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment.”

What arguments were presented?

 

During the proceedings, counsels representing various parties, including the Property Owners Association (POA) of Mumbai, vehemently argued against the idea that private properties could be seized by state authorities under constitutional schemes such as Articles 39(b) and 31 C.

 

However, the bench cautioned against an extreme interpretation that excludes private property from being considered as material resources of the community.

 

It may be a little extreme to suggest that ‘material resources of the community’ only means public resources and we do not have their origin in the private property of an individual. I will tell you why it would be dangerous to take that view.”

 

“Take simple things like mines and even private forests. For instance, for us to say that the governmental policy will not apply to the private forests under Article 39 (b)… therefore keep the hands off. It will be extremely dangerous as a proposition,” said the bench.

Historical context and social framework

 

The bench, reflecting on the social and economic conditions prevalent during the framing of the Constitution, reiterated that the Constitution was aimed at fostering social transformation. 

 

It emphasised the relevance of Article 39(b) in addressing societal demands for welfare measures and wealth redistribution.

The Chief Justice referred to historical reforms such as the abolition of ‘Zamindari’ practice and pointed out differing perspectives on property ownership, from capitalist exclusivity to socialist commonality. He stressed the Gandhian ethos that sustain the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) and the idea of property being a trust held both for current and future generations.

 

“The socialist concept of property is the mirror image which attributes to property, a notion of commonality. Nothing is exclusive to the individual. All property is common to the community. That’s the extreme socialist view,” the CJI added.

“And what is that ethos? Our ethos regards property as something which we hold in trust. We don’t go as far as to adopt the socialistic model that there is no private property…”

 

“But, you know, our concept of property has undergone a very different, very subtle change from either the extreme capitalist perspective or the extreme socialist perspective,” Chief Justice DY Chandrachud said.

 

“You must understand that Article 39 (b) has been crafted in a certain way in the Constitution because the Constitution was intended to bring about a social transformation. We shouldn’t therefore go that far to say that the moment private property is private property, the Article 39 (b) will have no application,” the CJI said.

Ongoing proceedings

 

However, when this topic was revisited, a counsel expressed reservations regarding the perceived radical nature of Justice Krishna Iyer's endorsement of extensive acquisition and redistribution of private property. They warned against embracing an overly Marxist interpretation, stressing the importance of striking a balance between redistribution goals and property rights.

 

The bench heard a total of 16 petitions, including the primary plea submitted by the Mumbai-based POA. The deliberations on this complex legal question remained inconclusive and will continue.