Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“The State, being a constitutional authority and repository of public trust, is duty-bound to protect, rather than transgress, the civil rights of its citizens, including the right to property. The powers of the State are not plenary or absolute but are circumscribed by constitutional and statutory limitations.”
The Supreme Court’s 2024 decisions have marked a significant turning point in the country’s legal and constitutional framework. Key rulings delivered by Constitutional Benches on Electoral bonds, private property, royalty as tax, AMU’s minority status, sub-classification within reserved categories, etc. have left an impact on fundamental rights, political transparency and tax regime, shaping India’s socio-political landscape, influencing both public policy and the broader democratic process.
“Unless and until private ownership and control of the material resources are transformed or converted into the “material resources of the community” which is a condition precedent, there cannot be distribution of the said resources by the State. Otherwise, the State would merely transfer privately owned material resources from one owner to another person, without first making it a “material resource of the community” which, is not the intent of the framers of the Constitution and neither is the same envisaged under Article 39(b).”
The 9-Judge Bench unanimously held that Article 31-C of the Constitution remains in force to the extent that it was upheld in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225.
“The seven sub-rights may be procedures, but they do constitute the real content of the right to property under Article 300A, non-compliance of these will amount to violation of the right, being without the authority of law.”