The understanding of private property in India heavily relies on the interpretation of Article 39(b) of the Indian Constitution, which says that the state shall direct its policy towards ensuring that the ownership and control of material resources of a community be distributed to serve the public good. In a recent judgment, the apex court has demonstrated an evolving approach to private property, balancing development needs with environmental and social concerns. A nine-member Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court (SC) affirmed that not all private properties can be considered "material resources of the community" and that the inclusion of privately owned resources within the scope of this Article is not automatic.
Initially, the judgement may seem favourable to ordinary private property holders, as it appears to safeguard their rights against unjust government acquisitions. However, upon closer examination, it’s clear that this judgment disproportionately benefits large landholders in India, allowing them to maintain vast landholdings and social influence and the corporates, who have been acquiring large tracts of land.
It effectively limits the government’s ability to acquire land for social welfare purposes, reinforcing the notion that the state exists primarily to protect the interests of the wealthy and powerful, rather than serving the needs of the poor and marginalised.
The central question is: What is the most just way to distribute these resources - should everyone receive the same amount of wealth or should it be distributed based on needs, capability, or social utility? The just distribution of wealth and resources will depend on a society’s values, cultural context, and economic conditions. A nuanced approach might combine elements from multiple theories, prioritising both individual rights and social welfare.
The egalitarian principle asserts that justice demands equal treatment and distribution of resources among individuals, disregarding their differences. However, this raises important questions. Are people truly equal in capabilities and opportunities? What metrics do we use to measure equality and how do we account for the complexities of human differences?
This can be argued for from either a competitive perspective of economic prosperity, based on the skill, abilities, and intelligence of individuals or a perspective of social justice, leading to preferential treatment of the weakest.
When we explore the evolution of private property theories in Western philosophy, it can be seen that Aristotle emphasises the importance of material resources, alongside virtues, for human flourishing. John Locke argues that private property is a natural right, derived from human labour and grounded in natural law; that posits that individuals have a natural right to the fruits of their labour, which becomes their property. It effectively limits the state’s moral authority over individuals. Lockean ideas significantly shaped liberal thought, emphasising individual rights and limited government intervention. Thus, Locke’s labour theory of property and natural law argument helped to establish private property as a fundamental right in Western societies.
However, the same natural law demands that natural resources be available for everyone and that everyone has a natural right to flourish and be happy. Locke hence places conditions of manageability and availability of resources for the use of others upon individual rights to property.
Similarly, Aristotle does not consider chasing wealth a desirable end-in-itself and thinks that property could be owned privately but should be used for public good.
A thoughtful examination of distributive justice aims to promote general welfare and egalitarian societies, ensuring the well-being of all citizens. Mill’s majoritarian principle argues that society should maximise social benefits and minimise social harm, even if it means being indifferent to the plight of minorities or individuals. Mill’s approach raises concern about the potential disregard for individual rights and the well-being of marginalised groups. Like Aristotle, Kant claims that the state should be seen as a necessary institution that enables all rational agents, not just some individuals or groups, to flourish and be happy as autonomous moral agents. The state must strike a balance between promoting collective welfare and protecting individual rights, ensuring that the well-being of all citizens is considered.
The present SC judgement can also be seen from the perspective of restorative justice. Restorative justice seeks to address historical injustices and promote healing and reconciliation. In this context, communities that have been discriminated against and denied economic opportunities may have a right to preferential treatment and greater shares of wealth. Rawls’ differential principle suggests that any exceptions to egalitarian distribution should benefit the least advantaged members of society. This principle acknowledges that past injustices may require corrective measures to promote social justice. The judgement puts to question the need for preferential treatment and affirmative action policies to address historical injustices and promote economic welfare and prosperity for marginalised communities.
Marxian ideas revolutionised the understanding of private property, shifting focus from ethics and virtue to political and economic considerations. Marx identified private property as the root cause of systemic inequalities and injustice, perpetuating wealth disparities and social injustices. Marx saw the existing class order as a barrier to the welfare of all, as it structurally perpetuated inequality. He advocated for removing social and economic inequalities, rather than alleviating the suffering of the weaker class. Marx envisioned a society with no privileged or underprivileged classes, where everyone has equal opportunities and access to resources.
Gandhi’s concept of trusteeship provides further insights into the understanding of private property and its role in social welfare. He believed that individuals should possess only what they need, and excess wealth should be utilised for the benefit of all, striking a balance between individual rights and social welfare. Gandhi’s vision of trusteeship is closely tied to the concept of Sarvodaya, or the rise of all. He saw excess private property as exploitative and a hindrance to the well-being of all members of society. Vinoba Bhave’s Bhoodan Movement, which encouraged the voluntary redistribution of land, was a practical application of this idea.
Jawaharlal Nehru’s vision for India was rooted in democratic socialism, which emphasises equitable distribution of wealth and social ownership of the means of production. Nehru’s implementation of land reforms was a crucial step towards preventing exploitation and promoting fair redistribution of wealth. His goal was to create a socialist society where the community controls major means of production, ensuring that everyone has access to resources and opportunities. Nehru’s socialist thoughts have had a lasting impact on India’s development, shaping the country’s economic and social policies.
The advent of neo-liberal economic policies in India marked a significant shift away from the socialist ideology that once drove the country’s economic and social policies. This shift has been further reinforced by the SC’s pronouncement that private property, regardless of its excessive nature or contribution to social injustice, cannot be considered a ‘material resource’ for the state to utilise in promoting social welfare.
In essence, this decision solidifies the notion that private property rights supersede social welfare concerns, effectively completing the cycle of neo-liberalism in India. The implications of this are far-reaching, with potential consequences for social inequality, economic justice, and the role of the state in addressing these issues.
The present pronouncement has far-reaching implications for India’s landless population, potentially perpetuating their landlessness and denying them basic material wealth. This goes against Aristotle’s concept of happiness, which emphasises the importance of material wealth in achieving a fulfilling life.
The decision also raises concerns about the violation of the state’s commitments to individual dignity and the principles of social justice. Specifically, it contravenes the difference principle in Rawlsian theory, which advocates for preferential treatment of the least advantaged. This means that the landless population will be deprived of basic dignity and opportunities to lead autonomous moral lives, as envisioned by Kant.
Furthermore, this decision undermines the Gandhian idea of Sarvodaya, which aims to promote the welfare of all, and Nehruvian Socialism, which seeks to reduce economic inequalities. Ultimately, it fails to uphold the state’s primary responsibility of ensuring a fair system for the well-being of all its citizens.
The lone dissenting judge on the bench has eloquently articulated the Constitutional Directive Principles for social welfare, emphasising the importance of equitable distribution of private resources to achieve social justice.
Dr Kumari Sunitha V is an Assistant Professor and Head of the Department of Philosophy, Madras Christian College, Chennai.
Dr Bins Sebastian is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Philosophy, Madras Christian College, Chennai.
Views expressed are authors’ own.