Supreme Court: Article 39(b) shouldn’t be read like there is no protection for private rights
A nine-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court, which is examining the question whether private property would constitute material resources of the community as appearing in Article 39(b), on Tuesday said that the provision should not be interpreted in such a wide sense that there is no protection for private rights at all.
“We will be sending a message across because what we write will send a message of what India is and what India aspires to be…We do not want to dilute the constitutional social significance of 39 (b) and (c). It’s there for us, given to us. At the same time, we should not be sending a message by interpreting 39(b) in such a wide sense that there is no protection of private rights in the society at all,” Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, presiding over the bench, said, adding “how will we attract private investment if we say that there is no protection of private rights”.
Agreeing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Maharashtra government, said that such an interpretation may be counter productive and “may not be in national interest”.
The bench, also comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy, B V Nagarathna, Sudhanshu Dhulia, J B Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, Satish Chandra Sharma and Augustine George Masih, is answering a reference whether the phrase “material resources of the community” in Article 39(b) of the Constitution includes what is privately owned.
The reference to the nine-judges had arisen in the context of the two views emerging in the 1978 decision in ‘State of Karnataka And Anr Etc vs Shri Ranganatha Reddy & Anr’. The case dealt with the nationalisation of road transport services. One of the opinions by Justice V R Krishna Iyer was that material resources of the community would include both natural and man-made, publicly and privately owned resources.
Written by Ananthakrishnan G
Follow
New Delhi | Updated: May 1, 2024 08:04 IST
Supreme Court of India
A nine-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court, which is examining the question whether private property would constitute material resources of the community as appearing in Article 39(b), on Tuesday said that the provision should not be interpreted in such a wide sense that there is no protection for private rights at all.
“We will be sending a message across because what we write will send a message of what India is and what India aspires to be…We do not want to dilute the constitutional social significance of 39 (b) and (c). It’s there for us, given to us. At the same time, we should not be sending a message by interpreting 39(b) in such a wide sense that there is no protection of private rights in the society at all,” Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, presiding over the bench, said, adding “how will we attract private investment if we say that there is no protection of private rights”.
Agreeing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Maharashtra government, said that such an interpretation may be counter productive and “may not be in national interest”.
ADVERTISEMENT
Read | Material resources of community would cover private resources, Maharashtra govt tells SC
The bench, also comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy, B V Nagarathna, Sudhanshu Dhulia, J B Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, Satish Chandra Sharma and Augustine George Masih, is answering a reference whether the phrase “material resources of the community” in Article 39(b) of the Constitution includes what is privately owned.
The reference to the nine-judges had arisen in the context of the two views emerging in the 1978 decision in ‘State of Karnataka And Anr Etc vs Shri Ranganatha Reddy & Anr’. The case dealt with the nationalisation of road transport services. One of the opinions by Justice V R Krishna Iyer was that material resources of the community would include both natural and man-made, publicly and privately owned resources.
Tuesday, the CJI said “the formulation by Justice Krishna Iyer is a little too extreme. What that says (is) since the community consists of individuals and therefore every individual is a part of the community, the material resources of the community would therefore also mean resources of the individual”.
Explained | Case before Supreme Court: Can Govt redistribute privately owned property?
“That may be a little extreme. Also, we must now be cognisant of the fact that all these constitutional provisions have an evolution. We are now interpreting them not in the context of the India of the 1950s,” the CJI pointed out.
ADVERTISEMENT
“Nationalisation to disinvestment. That is the transition,” Mehta was quick to add.
“Therefore, adopt an interpretation, which is in keeping with the changing nature of the times. At the same time, we must also have an enduring interpretation. So, it may be that certain resources which are invested in private individuals may still have some general bearing of public interest or welfare of the broad community, which requires regulation by the state,” the CJI said.
The CJI added that “you can’t attribute 39(b), at least in today’s times as sort of a definition, which gives expression to an unbridled agenda of communism or socialism. That’s not our Constitution today. We still protect private property, we still protect the right to carry on business… Therefore, our interpretation must also be nuanced to take care of what India is today and India is moving towards tomorrow”.
Mehta said that “investment in the private sector is now boosting the common good than what was in 1949”.
(Courtesy:- The Indian Express, 1 May 2024)
If somebody is born as Rahul Gandhi, how can they be prevented from contesting elections?: SC refuses to entertain plea on ‘namesake’ candidates in polls
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a plea that sought a direction to the Election Commission (EC) to take urgent steps for an effective mechanism to solve the issue of “namesake” candidates contesting polls.
After a bench headed by Justice B R Gavai showed disinclination to entertain the plea, the petitioner’s counsel sought permission to withdraw it.
The bench, also comprising Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and Sandeep Mehta, allowed the petition to be withdrawn.
“If somebody is born as Rahul Gandhi or if somebody is born as Lalu Prasad Yadav, how can they be prevented from contesting elections? Would it not be affecting their rights?” the bench asked advocate V K Biju, who appeared in the court on behalf of petitioner Sabu Steephen.
Describing the issue as “extremely serious”, Biju had referred to Rule 22(3) of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, which says if two or more candidates bear the same name, they shall be distinguished by the addition of their occupation or residence or in some other manner.
“If somebody’s parents have given a similar name, can it come in their way of their right to contest elections?” the bench asked.
“You know what is the fate of the case,” it told Biju.
The lawyer then told the bench that he be allowed to withdraw the petition.
“Allowed to withdraw,” the bench said.
The plea said the “wrong practice of fielding ‘namesake’ candidates is an old trick to create confusion in the minds of voters”.
It said such a practice is required to be curtailed on a war-footing since “each and every vote” has its power to decide a candidate’s future.
“Therefore, that the ‘confusion’ needs to be replaced with ‘clarity’ is the need of the hour, which can be achieved by way of proper amendment, modifications in the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961. Moreover, it is an unhealthy and corrupted democratic practice,” the petition said.
It claimed that the “namesake” candidates may not have any knowledge and awareness about the political and administrative systems in India and they are getting “sponsorships” from rival political parties, including money, materials and other offers.
“However, the petitioner is not claiming that all the independent candidates are fake or not saying that those candidates do not have the right to contest. However, an effective scrutiny and appropriate mechanism should be there to avoid the namesake candidates, which is the need of the hour,” the plea said.
(Courtesy:- The Telegraph Online, 3 May 2024)
Reserve 33% of bar body posts for women: Supreme Court
Supreme Court Thursday directed that at least onethird of posts in the executive committee of Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) should be reserved for women. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and K V Viswanathan passed direction granting reservation for women lawyers for polls scheduled this month.
The court directed that a minimum of three out of nine seats in the executive committee and at least two out of six senior executive members be reserved for women members of the Bar. It said that at least one post of office-bearer shall be reserved for women exclusively by turn and on rotation basis, and for the ensuing 2024-2025 election, the post of treasurer of the executive committee be reserved for women.
(Courtesy:- The Times of India, 3 May 2023)
SC stays opening of road outside Punjab CM house: ‘Nobody wants anything untoward should happen’
With both the Centre and state government flagging security threats, the Supreme Court on Friday stayed the operation of the Punjab and Haryana High Court direction to reopen a road in front of the Punjab chief minister’s residence in Chandigarh “on experimental basis” from May 1.
The HC in its order on April 22 had directed that the 500-metre stretch of road, which has been closed since the 1980s after the rise of terrorism in Punjab, be opened for “traffic on working days from 7 am to 7 pm initially” starting May 1 on an experimental basis.
Issuing notice on the state government’s appeal challenging the HC order, a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta said “both state and union of India feel that keeping in view the threat perception, it may not be advisable to open the road even for one week on experimental basis as any untoward happening during the time would lead to chaos”.
Posting the matter for further hearing on September 2, it said “till the next date of hearing, there will be stay of the direction for opening of the road on experimental basis from May 1”.
It, however, clarified that other proceedings in the writ petition before the HC can continue.
The bench also issued a notice and sought the response of the Chandigarh Administration by September 2.
During the hearing, the top court asked what is the problem in reopening the road on an experimental basis.
Appearing for the state, Advocate General Gurminder Singh contended that that the high court had brushed aside the threat perception as a “figment of imagination”, ignoring the reports pertaining to the security issues that will arise with the opening of the road.
The Punjab AG further contended that the HC order was passed without considering the security and safety concerns and the threat perception to Punjab CM, and the fact that Punjab is a border state and the sensitivity, security scenario there is different from other states.
He further argued that HC failed to consider the resurgence in the radical activities in the state since 2017 in the form of targeted attacks and killings, and the past incident of assassination of a Punjab CM.
The Punjab AG pointed out that singer Subhdeep Singh, alias, Sidhu Moosewala, was killed two days after his security detail was scaled down. He also referred to a Rocket Propelled Grenade (RPG) attack on the Punjab Police’s Intelligence headquarters in the past.
“They are waiting for that one opportunity,” Singh submitted.
“If rockets are hurled, then the road blockade will not help you,” Justice Khanna observed. To a query from the bench about the distance between the road and the CM’s residence, the AG said it is only about 30 metres.
Appearing for the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that it’s not correct to term inputs of intelligence agencies are figments of imagination. Mehta said, “Let security arrangements be left to the government. The state is saying there is a threat perception. We have experience”.
The Punjab AG referred to a social media post, which said the incumbent CM is going to meet the same fate as former CM Beant Singh “who was killed 100 metres away by a human bomb”.
Mehta asked who would take the responsibility if something untoward happens during the one week that the HC wants the road opened. Singh pointed out that there is an alternate route 100 metres away.
Justice Datta asked since when has this road been blocked to which Singh replied that it has been closed since almost 1980’s. The bench wondered how many more years will it continue to be blocked and asked “is it not a feasible option to find an alternative place”.
Singh said, “They are making a bypass. Once it’s completed, there will be no requirement to open this road”
To the bench’s query when it would be completed, he said, “I think within a few years, it should be done”.
Expressing surprise that it’s still not complete, the bench said that the construction of the bypass should be expedited. “By now, it should have been done on your own,” said Justice Khanna.
Mehta said the intelligence agencies foil several plots before they can be materialised and hence the public do not come to know about them.
“Nobody will like something untoward should happen,” said Justice Khanna. Mehta added that there is a filmy dialogue. “The terrorist have to succeed once. The agencies will have to succeed every time”.
The high court on April 22 had ordered the opening of the 500-metre road, connecting the Sukhna lake to Nayagaon, on a trial basis from May 1. The high court had also directed the Chandigarh Police to engage traffic experts for preparing a traffic management plan for the road that was to be opened from 7 am to 7 pm on working days.
Since the closure of the road, people moving between Nayagaon and the Sukhna lake were forced to take long detours via adjacent sectors of the city.
The official residences of the Punjab and Haryana chief ministers are situated on the road and therefore, the police of both states and the Chandigarh administration had opposed the plea for its opening.
(Courtesy:- The Indian Express, 3 May 2024)
Supreme Court stays Punjab and Haryana High Court order to remove protesters from Chandigarh-Mohali road
The Supreme Court has stayed the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s order to authorities to remove protesters blocking Chandigarh-Mohali road for release of political prisoners.
Acting on a petition filed by the Punjab government, a Bench led by Justice BR Gavai on Friday also issued notice to Arrive Safe Society — an NGO which had gone to the high court, the Centre, the Chandigarh Administration and others.
The protesters have been seeking the release of Sikh prisoners, including Balwant Singh Rajoana, a convict in the former Punjab chief minister Beant Singh’s assassination case, and Devinderpal Singh Bhullar, a 1993 Delhi bomb blast convict.
On behalf of the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta supported the Punjab Government’s stand.
“We are supporting each other. Federalism is always protected except when it comes to corruption. In COVID times, every State and Centre worked together…,” said Mehta after Justice Gavai commented that the Centre and the state were on the same page “for a change.”
Noting that the Centre and the state had a common objective, Punjab Advocate General Gurminder Singh urged the top court to stay the high court order.
The high court had on April 9 said that despite repeated opportunities given, neither the State of Punjab nor the Union territory of Chandigarh had been able to give any redressal to the commuters of Chandigarh and SAS Nagar Mohali.
It had expressed the hope that the Punjab and Chandigarh Administration would wake up from their slumber.
“On account of a handful of people sitting and blocking the road, inconvenience is being caused to the commuters and residents of the Tri-city and the misery is continuing,” it had said.
The high court had cited the Supreme Court’s observations in Amit Sahni vs Commissioner of Police and others, 2020 (Shaheen Bagh protests case) in which the top court had said that public places can’t be occupied indefinitely.
“Only on account of the fact that some of the protestors have been hiding behind a shield of religious legitimacy by placing the Guru Granth Sahib would not as such give the State reason not to act against the persons concerned, who are misusing the religious sentiments,” the high court had said.
“In spite of the fact that it is well known that all the agitators from the rural background are busy in harvesting and it is most opportune time to remove the blockage of the road, the State of Punjab and the Union Territory, Chandigarh, are dragging their feet for the reasons best known to them,” it had said, noting that the photographs placed on record showed there was no large gathering.
(Courtesy:- The Tribune, 4 May 2024)
Furnish data on notices, arrests under GST Act, Supreme Court tells Centre
The Supreme Court has asked the Centre to furnish details of issuance of notices and arrests done under the provisions of the Goods and Services Tax, saying it may interpret the law and lay down appropriate guidelines to avoid any harassment of citizens by depriving their liberty.
A Special Bench of Justices Sanjeev Khanna, MM Sundresh and Bela M Trivedi, which is hearing a batch of 281 petitions challenging various provisions of the GST Act, Customs Act and the provisions of PMLA, voiced concern over the ambiguity in section 69 of the GST Act that deals with the powers of arrest.
The Bench said it would interpret the law to “strengthen” the liberty, if need be, but not allow citizens to be harassed. “You furnish the data on notices issued and arrests made under the GST Act for alleged defaults of Rs 1 crore to Rs 5 crore respectively for the past three years. There can be harassment of people and we won’t permit that. If we find there is ambiguity in the provision, we will set it right. Second, people can’t be sent behind bars in all the cases,” the Bench told Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for the Centre.
The Bench sought the data after senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for some of the petitioners flagged the alleged misuse of the powers of the authorities under the GST regime, saying it is curtailing the liberty of individuals.
The Bench said, “We want all the data. The GST Council will have those data. If the data is available, we want it before us.” The ASG told the Bench he would try to answer the court’s queries, when the matter will be heard next on May 9.
(Courtesy:- The Tribune, 4 May 2024)