Property Owners Association vs State of Maharashtra: A Clash of Principles
The Supreme Court of India is currently considering two crucial questions in the Property Owners Association vs State of Maharashtra case. Firstly, what is the meaning of “material resources of the community” as used in Article 39(b) of the Constitution? Secondly, are laws enacted to secure these resources immune from challenges based on fundamental rights to equality and freedom?
This case highlights the tension between Part III of the Constitution, which enshrines fundamental rights, and Part IV, which contains Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs). DPSPs are aspirational goals that the state is expected to strive towards, while fundamental rights are legally enforceable. Historically, there has been a debate about the relationship between these two parts of the Constitution.
Article 31C, introduced in 1971, provided immunity to certain laws from judicial review on grounds of Article 14 (equality) and Article 19 (freedoms). However, the scope of this immunity has been contested. The Supreme Court’s decision in Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala (1973) held that Article 31C could not be used to protect laws that violated the Constitution’s basic structure. Despite this, the tension between DPSPs and fundamental rights has persisted.
In Property Owners, the Court will examine whether a law that allows a state government to acquire dilapidated buildings with the consent of 70% of residents furthers Article 39(b). Even if it does, the question remains whether the law can also be tested against Articles 14 and 19. The Court’s decision will have a significant impact on the balance between fundamental rights and DPSPs in Indian constitutional law.
We’re a group of volunteers and opening a new scheme in our community. Your site provided us with valuable information to work on. You have done a formidable job and our whole community will be grateful to you.