Can the property of private individuals be acquired for the benefit of the poor? An important statement from the Supreme Court Achi-News

New Delhi: Amidst the ongoing political tussle between Congress and BJP over the reintroduction of inheritance tax in the country, can private property be acquired for public good? The Supreme Court has given an important statement.

A nine member constitution bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud of the Supreme Court on inheritance tax expressed this view that the purpose of the Constitution is to create a ‘spirit of social transformation’ and that it is ‘dangerous’ to say that the private sector. an individual’s property cannot be treated as a ‘physical resource of the community and the state’. The Supreme Court said on Wednesday that the authorities cannot seize it.

Also Read: World’s richest family: 700 cars, 8 private jets, house worth ₹4000 crore! Wow, this is the richest family in the world!

The bench examines whether resources in private ownership can be considered community physical resources. Earlier, counsel for various parties, including the Property Owners Association (POA) Mumbai, strongly argued that state authorities cannot acquire private property under the guise of constitutional schemes under Articles 39 (b) and 31c of the Constitution, said the court.

The bench considered a complex legal question arising from various petitions as to whether private property could be treated as a ‘material resource of the community’ under Article 39(b) of the Constitution. Article 39(B) of the Constitution is part of the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP). It may be a bit of an exaggeration to say that ‘community material resources’ are only public resources and do not originate from the private property of any individual. We will tell you why it is dangerous to hold such a scene, the bench said.

‘Take simple things like private mines and forests. For example, government policy under Article 39(B) does not apply to private forests. Therefore, the Supreme Court said that it is very dangerous to say stay away from this matter. The bench comprised Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice BV Nagaratna, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice JB Pardiwala, Justice Manoj Mishra, Justice Rajesh Bindal, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Augustine George Christ.

Also Read: Lok Sabha Election: Congress spoils you not only when you are alive, but also when you are dead; Modi thundered against inheritance tax

Referring to other social and general conditions of the 1950s, the bench said, ‘The purpose of the Constitution was to bring about social change and it cannot be said that Article 39(b) has no application to private property’. Whether the Maharashtra law empowering authorities to take possession of dilapidated buildings is valid or not is an entirely different matter and will be considered separately, the bench said.

The hearing of this case has not yet been completed and has been adjourned until Thursday.

Read the latest news first at News 18 Kannada. Get daily fresh news, live news update on Believer News 18 in Kannada