Latest news with #DirectivePrinciples
The Wire
17 hours ago
- Politics
- The Wire
'SC Banned Bulldozer Justice Because Executive Cannot Be Judge, Jury and Executioner': CJI Gavai
Law CJI Gavai also quoted from the Supreme Court judgment in the case pertaining to bulldozer demolitions, which said 'Construction of a house has an aspect of socio-economic rights.' Chief Justice of India Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai during the State Lawyers Conference organised by Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, in Mumbai on Sunday, May 18, 2025. Photo: PTI New Delhi: Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai on Thursday (June 19) told an assembly of top Italian judges how the Supreme Court had banned 'bulldozer justice', preventing the executive from becoming the judge, jury and executioner. "The executive cannot become judge, jury and executioner all at once," said CJI Gavai, reported Times of India. CJI Gavai also quoted from the Supreme Court judgment in the case pertaining to bulldozer demolitions which said "Construction of a house has an aspect of socio-economic rights.' He was speaking at the Milan Court of Appeal on 'Role of Constitution in Delivering Socio-Economic Justice in a Country: Reflections from 75 Years of Indian Constitution". "For an average citizen, construction of a house is often the culmination of years of hard work, dreams and aspirations. A house is not just a property but embodies the collective hopes of a family or individuals for stability, security and a future," said CJI Gavai. 'As we look back on these 75 years, there is no doubt that the Indian Constitution has strived for change in the life of the common people. To summarise, several aspects of Directive Principles were made enforceable by reading or legislating them as a facet of fundamental rights,' he added. CJI Gavai said that the Constitution's journey in the past 75 years in delivering socio-economic justice "is a story of great ambition and important successes...' "Affirmative action policies in education, which sought to correct historical injustices and ensure representation of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and socially and educationally backward classes, have been a concrete expression of the Constitution's commitment to substantive equality and socio-economic justice," said the CJI. He cited his own example – the second Dalit to become CJI – and said that he was a product of the very constitutional ideals that sought to democratise opportunity and dismantle the barriers of caste and exclusion. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
Time of India
a day ago
- Politics
- Time of India
SC put stop to 'bulldozer justice': Executive can't be judge, jury, says CJI
CJI BR Gavi NEW DELHI: Highlighting Supreme Court's contribution in the last 75 years to accelerate political, economic and social justice to the poor and marginalised, CJI B R Gavai on Thursday told an assembly of top judges of Italy how the top court recently banned "bulldozer justice" and prevented the executive from becoming the judge, jury and executioner. Gavai was referring to SC's judgment last year barring the executive from arbitrary demolition of houses of those accused of crime, bypassing the legal process, which violated citizens' fundamental right to shelter under Article 21. CJI B R Gavai was speaking at the Milan Court of Appeal on 'Role of Constitution in Delivering Socio-Economic Justice in a Country: Reflections from 75 Years of Indian Constitution". "The executive cannot become judge, jury and executioner all at once," the CJI said and quoted the judgment, which stated, "Construction of a house has an aspect of socio-economic rights." "For an average citizen, construction of a house is often the culmination of years of hard work, dreams and aspirations. A house is not just a property but embodies the collective hopes of a family or individuals for stability, security and a future," the CJI further added. "As we look back on these 75 years, there is no doubt that the Indian Constitution has strived for change in the life of the common people. To summarise, several aspects of Directive Principles were made enforceable by reading or legislating them as a facet of fundamental rights," CJI Gavai said. "While Parliament took the lead by way of legislation and constitutional amendments, Supreme Court has consistently worked to transform socio-economic rights, ranging from education to livelihood, into enforceable fundamental rights, which were then given effect by Parliament," he added. The CJI added that the Constitution's journey in the past 75 years in delivering socio-economic justice "is a story of great ambition and important successes... the earliest initiatives undertaken by the Indian Parliament immediately after the adoption of the Constitution included land and agrarian reform laws and affirmative action policies for backward classes. The impact of these initiatives is clearly visible today". CJI Gavai, the second Dalit to become the head of India's judiciary, said, "Affirmative action policies in education, which sought to correct historical injustices and ensure representation of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and socially and educationally backward classes, have been a concrete expression of the Constitution's commitment to substantive equality and socio-economic justice." Because of these measures, he could become CJI, Gavai said, adding that he was a product of the very constitutional ideals that sought to democratise opportunity and dismantle the barriers of caste and exclusion.
India Gazette
a day ago
- Politics
- India Gazette
India's Constitution played major role in advancing socio-economic justice for its citizens: CJI
New Delhi [India], June 19 (ANI): Chief Justice of India BR Gavai on Thursday said that the Indian Constitution has given us the vision, tools, and moral guidance and has shown us that law can indeed be a tool for social change, a force for empowerment, and a protector of the vulnerable. Speaking at the Milan Court of Appeal, Italy, on the topic 'Role of Constitution in Delivering Socio-Economic Justice in a Country: Reflections from 75 Years of Indian Constitution,' CJI Gavai said that the journey of the Indian Constitution over the past 75 years in delivering socio-economic justice is a story of great ambition and important success. 'Affirmative action policies in education, which sought to correct historical injustices and ensure representation of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and socially and educationally backward classes, have been a concrete expression of the Constitution's commitment to substantive equality and socio-economic justice,' he said. CJI said that Constitution is not just a political document for governance, but was a 'revolutionary statement', giving a ray of hope to a country coming out of long years of colonial rule, suffering from poverty, inequality, and social divisions. He took pride in stating that the framers of the Indian Constitution were deeply conscious of the imperative of socio-economic justice while drafting its provisions. 'The framing of the Indian Constitution set a profound precedent for democratic governance in the post-colonial world. India's Constitution became a model for other emerging nations striving to build inclusive and participatory governance structures,' said the CJI. In his lecture, CJI said that as we look back on these 75 years, there is no doubt that the Indian Constitution has strived for the change in the life of the common people. 'To summarise, several aspects of the Directive Principles were made enforceable by reading or legislating them as a facet of the fundamental rights. While Parliament took a lead by way of legislation and constitutional amendments, the Supreme Court has consistently worked to transform socio-economic rights, ranging from education to livelihood, into enforceable fundamental rights, which were then given effect by the Parliament,' he added. 'In other words, the journey of the Indian Constitution over the past 75 years in delivering socio-economic justice is a story of great ambition and important successes. To take an example, the earliest initiatives undertaken by the Indian Parliament immediately after the adoption of the Constitution included land and agrarian reform laws and affirmative action policies for backward classes. The impact of these initiatives is clearly visible today,' CJI further said. (ANI)
Hans India
10-06-2025
- Politics
- Hans India
From socialism to market economy-Power over private property
The judgment allows for some private resources to be used for the public good under Article 39(b) while preserving individuals' property rights, supporting India's economic growth within a democratic framework. The court emphasized that DPSPs are not enforceable laws. The government must balance social welfare goals with citizens' rights. Recently, former Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud led the majority (8:1) and wrote: 'India's economic trajectory has shifted from socialism to liberalization and market reforms. The Constitution does not endorse any single economic ideology.' He added that calling all private property 'material resources' forces a rigid socialist theory, which no longer reflects India's democratic economic reality. Are there any limits on power of the government over private property? Can the government seize any private property by calling it a 'material resource of the community' under Article 39(b) of the Indian Constitution? On 5 November 2024, a nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India delivered a historic verdict in the Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra case. The ruling settled a long-standing constitutional question: It answered with a clear no, thereby reaffirming individual property rights and limiting government power. This judgment has brought clarity to the conflict between Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) and Fundamental Rights, and overruled earlier judgments that adopted a broad socialist interpretation of Article 39(b). Ignoring the Directive Principles Article 39(b) is part of the Directive Principles of State Policy in Part IV of the Constitution. It says: 'The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good.' It encourages laws for equitable distribution of wealth and resources, but DPSPs are not legally enforceable—they are only guiding principles. Do we have any Property Rights? Before 1978, right to property was a Fundamental Right under Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31. However, due to frequent land reforms, bank nationalization, and other socialist welfare measures, the Parliament passed the: 25th Constitutional Amendment (1971): Introduced Article 31C to protect laws made under Article 39(b) and (c) from being challenged for violating Fundamental Rights like Articles 14, 19, and 31. 42nd Constitutional Amendment (1976): Further expanded Article 31C to cover all Directive Principles, not just 39(b) and (c). But in Minerva Mills (1980), the Supreme Court struck down this wider protection, ruling that only Article 39(b) and (c) could remain shielded. Where Article 31C was upheld: In the famous Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), the Supreme Court upheld Article 31C, but with a caveat — laws passed under it must still pass judicial review. This was to prevent misuse of DPSPs to undermine basic structure principles like judicial independence or fundamental rights. Thus, the Court permitted limited curtailment of property rights, but only in pursuit of the common good as envisaged in Articles 39(b) and (c), and not at the cost of the basic structure of the Constitution. A 32-year fight for justice: Though justice is upheld in some cases, delay is the biggest problem. The current verdict comes from a petition filed by the Property Owners Association (POA) in Mumbai, challenging Chapter VIIIA of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act (MHADA), 1976, which permitted the government to acquire 'cessed properties' (old private buildings) for restoration. The POA argued this violated their right to property, and that Article 39(b) had been wrongly used to justify taking over all private property. The case spanned decades and multiple bench references, eventually resulting in this nine-judge bench being formed. Govt cannot acquire private property per se: The Court ruled that not every private property can be called a 'material resource of the community'. Article 39(b) does not give the government a blanket power to seize all private assets for the 'common good'. Material resources- Limited, not universal: The court clarified that 'material resources' must meet specific criteria such as: Belonging in public trust; Having community impact; being scarce or capable of causing harm by monopoly and possessing intrinsic public value like water and minerals, among others. Thus, private homes or businesses do not automatically qualify. Balanced approach to 'distribution' The term 'distribution' under Article 39(b) includes: Government acquisition and redistribution to private parties — only when it benefits the common good. So, laws under 39(b) must meet both public interest and proportionality tests. Survival of Article 31C: The Court confirmed Article 31C still protects laws made under Article 39(b) and (c) from Fundamental Rights challenges, but not from judicial review. This limits the misuse of Article 31C as a shield. The court recognized the dramatic shifts like private property, from traditional assets to data and space exploration. The judgment emphasizes the need to respect evolving market realities. Are we reinforcing a market-oriented economic model? It is interpreted that this judgment offers protection for marginalized communities against the unjust acquisition of their small farms and forest lands while promoting responsible management of essential public resources. The judgment allows for some private resources to be used for the public good under Article 39(b) while preserving individuals' property rights, supporting India's economic growth within a democratic framework. The court emphasized that DPSPs are not enforceable laws. The government must balance social welfare goals with citizens' rights. Justice Iyer's opinion was relied on by subsequent Constitution Benches in Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing and Mafatlal Industries judgments in 1982 and 1997, respectively; hence, necessitating a reference to the nine-judge Bench. The CJI quoted a 'harsh' observation made by the Chief Justice about Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in a 'proposed judgment'. Justice Iyer was a former top court judge whose humanism and reforms in criminal justice are considered legendary. His coinage 'bail is the rule, jail is the exception' is still assiduously quoted in Supreme Court judgments. Justice Krishna Iyer's dissenting view in Ranganath Reddy (1977) that all private wealth could be treated as public resources. The judgment noted that while Justice Iyer's ideas were rooted in the socialist vision of the 1970s, India's voters have since chosen liberal economic policies. Rejecting the view of Justice Iyer as one presenting a 'particular ideology', the majority opinion penned by Chief Justice Chandrachud said India has moved on from socialism to liberalisation to market-based reforms. Justice Iyer was a former top court judge, whose humanism and reforms in criminal justice are considered legendary. His coinage 'bail is the rule, jail is the exception' is still assiduously quoted in Supreme Court judgments. In separate opinions, Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Sudhanshu Dhulia, he had observed that 'the Krishna Iyer doctrine does a disservice to the broad and flexible spirit of the Constitution'. Dissenting: Justice B.V. Nagarathna: 'Judges must not decry the contributions of their predecessors. The institution is greater than individuals.' Justice Dhulia praised Justice Iyer's humanist vision, saying: 'The Krishna Iyer Doctrine was built on fairness and empathy. In dark times, it illuminated our path.' Though he dissented on interpretational grounds, he recognized the spirit of the Constitution as a living document, balancing rights and welfare. Finally, the November 5, 2024 Supreme Court ruling is a turning point in the constitutional understanding of property rights in India, saying: Individual property rights are protected. The government cannot seize private property arbitrarily. Article 39(b) remains relevant but must be applied with caution and clear public purpose. Article 31C survives, but judicial review cannot be ousted. The Directive Principles must align with fundamental rights, not override them. Courts remain vigilant in preserving constitutional balance between economic justice and individual liberty. This landmark judgment reaffirms the Supreme Court's role as a constitutional guardian, ensuring that the state acts for public welfare without violating basic rights. It also recognizes the evolving nature of economic policies in a vibrant democracy, where people, not dogmas, shape the nation's path. (The writer is Professor of the Constitution of India and founder-Dean, School of Law, Mahindra University, Hyderabad)
Time of India
01-06-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Indian Constitution: Chief Justice Gavai Acknowledges Constitution's Role in India's Unity During Crises, ET LegalWorld
The Constitution has ensured that whenever the country has faced a crisis, it has remained united and strong, Chief Justice of India (CJI) B R Gavai said on Saturday. The CJI was addressing a function after the inauguration of advocate chambers and multi-level parking at the Allahabad High Court here. "When the Constitution was being made and its final draft was presented before the Constituent Assembly, at that time some people used to say that the Constitution is too federal while some used to say that it is too unitary. "Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar had replied that the Constitution is neither wholly federal nor wholly unitary. But one thing I can tell you is that we have given a Constitution which will keep India united and strong both in times of peace and war," CJI Gavai said. Advt Advt Join the community of 2M+ industry professionals Subscribe to our newsletter to get latest insights & analysis. Download ETLegalWorld App Get Realtime updates Save your favourite articles Scan to download App He said India has been on the path of development after independence due to the Constitution."Today we see what is the condition of our neighbouring countries. And India is making a journey towards development after independence. Whenever there has been a crisis in the country, it has remained united and strong. The credit for this should be given to the Constitution," he the 75-year journey of the Constitution coming into effect, the legislature, the executive and the judiciary have contributed a lot in bringing social and economic equality, he said."It is our fundamental duty to reach out to the last citizen of this country who needs justice. Be it the legislature, the executive or the judiciary, everyone has to reach out to that citizen," the CJI told the to the land reforms, he said some laws were brought under which land was taken from the landlord and given to the landless persons."These laws were challenged from time to time. Before 1973, the Supreme Court's view was that if there is a conflict between the Directive Principles and the Fundamental Rights, then the Fundamental Rights will prevail."Gavai said, "In 1973, a decision of 13 judges came that the Parliament has the right to amend the Constitution and for this, it can amend the Fundamental Rights, but it does not have the right to change the basic structure of the Constitution."The Chief Justice of India said that this bench had also said that both the Fundamental Rights and the Directives Principles are the soul of the of these are the two wheels of the golden chariot of the Constitution, if you stop one of these wheels, the entire chariot will said, "I have always been saying that the bar and the bench are two sides of the same coin. Unless the bar and the bench work together, the chariot of justice cannot move forward."Today the Allahabad High Court has given a good role model for the whole country in which the judges vacated 12 bungalows for the bar (for the construction of the complex) and took care of the convenience of their lawyer brothers."
