Public welfare versus private propertyrights
The Supreme Court’s verdict reaffirms the importance of balancing public welfare with private property rights
The Supreme Court judgment on the State’s power to acquire privately owned resources for public distribution clarifies the government’s eminent domain powers while ensuring a balanced approach between private property rights and collective welfare. In an 8-1 majority, the top court held that while the State may acquire private resources for public good, not all privately owned assets automatically qualify for such acquisition. By limiting the State’s acquisition power to resources that meet certain criteria — scarcity, public impact, and necessity for community welfare — the Court has set down a clear framework to avoid arbitrary confiscation of private assets.
Article 39(b) of the Constitution, which allows the State to influence the distribution of material resources in ways that best serve public interest, often has been seen as a mandate for social welfare, pushing redistributive justice. However, the Court’s ruling rightly emphasises that Article 39(b) should not be interpreted as a carte blanche for government acquisition, which could undermine property rights protected under Article 300A. This balance is crucial: While resources essential to the community, such as forests or water bodies, may fall under State control, other private assets cannot. Justice BV Nagarathna’s dissent enriches the discourse by underscoring that the Court’s interpretations should reflect a balance between historical values and contemporary societal needs. The majority’s application of the public trust doctrine, asserting that vital resources are held in trust by the State for public benefit, provides a guiding principle.
By setting precise limits and spelling out acquisition criteria, the verdict reaffirms the importance of balancing public welfare with private property rights. Politically, this judgment sets a precedent that curbs any sweeping economic redistribution initiatives while still allowing for meaningful State intervention when it is justified.
Continue reading with HT Premium Subscription
