What is ‘Marxist interpretation’ of wealth redistribution that SC talked about?

In a recent hearing, the Supreme Court engaged in a significant discussion regarding the interpretation of wealth redistribution, particularly in the context of private property and its relation to the common good.

The nine-judge bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, delved 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?

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 were the arguments presented?

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

The bench, however, 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 which also included justices Hrishikesh Roy, B V Nagarathna, Sudhanshu Dhulia, J B Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, Satish Chandra Sharma and Augustine George Masih.

Historical context and social framework

Reflecting on the social and economic conditions prevalent during the framing of the Constitution, the bench reiterated that the Constitution aimed at fostering social transformation. It underscored the relevance of Article 39 (b) in addressing the societal demands for welfare measures and wealth redistribution.

The Chief Justice referred to historical reforms such as the abolition of ‘Zamindari’ and outlined contrasting perspectives on property ownership, ranging from capitalist exclusivity to socialist commonality. He emphasised the Gandhian ethos underpinning the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) and the notion of property as 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 said, adding that the DPSPs have their foundation in the Gandhian ethos.

“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.

The bench clarified that Article 39 (b) was crafted within the constitutional framework to facilitate social transformation. It cautioned against dismissing its applicability solely based on the private nature of property ownership. The discussion also encompassed the issue of Article 31 C, which grants immunity to laws aimed at protecting DPSPs, despite objections raised by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.

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.

“What Justice Krishna Iyer does advocate is please acquire private property and distribute it. Now that is too extreme a view in my humble submission. It’s too extreme a Marxist concept that you acquire somebody’s land and give it to everybody else. That is not in our humble submission of the intent of 39b.”

The bench heard a total of 16 petitions, including the primary plea submitted by the Mumbai-based POA. Originating in 1992, this lead petition underwent three referrals to larger benches comprising five and seven judges, culminating in its consideration by a nine-judge bench on 20 February, 2002.

The deliberations on this complex legal question remained inconclusive and are set to continue. The bench will continue with hearing the Union’s arguments on 24 April.

The bench will further explore the implications of Article 39 (b) and its alignment with broader principles of social justice and equitable distribution of resources.

With numerous petitions, including the lead petition filed by the Mumbai-based POA, under consideration, the Supreme Court’s examination of wealth redistribution within the framework of Article 39 (b) signifies a critical judicial inquiry into the intersection of private property rights and the common good.