New Delhi: The Supreme Court today said that the purpose of the Constitution is to bring about a spirit of social change. The Supreme Court further said that it would be dangerous to say that an individual’s personal property cannot be considered a material resource of the community. The constitutional bench of the Supreme Court said that it would be dangerous to say that private property cannot be acquired for public welfare. A bench of 9 judges led by Supreme Court Chief Justice DY Chandrachud has made this comment. The legal question before the Supreme Court is whether privately owned resources can be considered physical resources of the community? On behalf of the Property Owners Association of Mumbai and other parties, it was argued in the Supreme Court that no state official can take over private property in the name of a constitutional scheme. He argues that the property cannot be seized under the constitutional schemes of Articles 39B and 31C of the Constitution. The complex question before the Supreme Court is whether private property can be considered a material resource of the community under Article 39B of the Constitution?
During this, a bench of 9 judges of the Supreme Court commented that it would be a bit much to say that the material resources of the community mean only public property and cannot originate from private property. The Supreme Court said that we will tell you why it is dangerous to say this. The Supreme Court said that if we take the case of mines or private forests, it would be dangerous to say that government policy will not be implemented in these. The Supreme Court said that there were social and other circumstances in 1950 but the purpose of the Constitution is to bring about social change. The hearing will continue on Thursday also.
