Why in the news? 

The debate surrounding the redistribution of wealth has piqued interest during the ongoing election campaigns.

What does the Constitution provide?

• Preamble to the Constitution: It outlines the objectives of the Constitution, including securing social, and economic justice, liberty, and equality for all citizens.
• Part III and IV:  These are principles that the central and State governments should follow to achieve social and economic justice in our country. Unlike the fundamental rights in Part III, the DPSP is not enforceable in court.
•  Article 39(b) and 39 (c): Article 39(b) emphasizes the distribution of ownership and control of material resources to serve the common good. Article 39(c) aims to prevent the concentration of wealth in a manner detrimental to the common good.

The history of the ‘Right to Property’ in the Indian Constitution:

• Original Guarantee: The Constitution initially guaranteed the right to property as a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(f). It provided that individuals have the right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property.
• Compensation Requirement: Article 31 of the Constitution mandated that the state must provide compensation in case of the acquisition of private property for public purposes.
• Land Reforms and Public Welfare: The government, facing challenges such as land reforms and the need for public infrastructure development, found the original provisions restrictive due to inadequate resources. This led to amendments aimed at providing more flexibility in acquiring land for public welfare.
• Constitutional Amendments: Notable amendments such as Articles 31A, 31B, and 31C were introduced to curtail the right to property and facilitate land acquisition for public welfare projects.
• Judicial Interpretation of Constitution ammendment: The Supreme Court interpreted the relationship between fundamental rights and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) in various cases. In the Golak Nath case (1967), the Court held that fundamental rights cannot be diluted to implement DPSP. However, in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), the Court upheld the validity of Article 31C, subject to judicial review.
• Harmonious Balance: In the Minerva Mills case (1980), the Supreme Court emphasized the need for a harmonious balance between fundamental rights and DPSP in the Constitution.
• 44th Amendment Act: In 1978, the property right was removed as a fundamental right through the 44th Amendment Act, making it a constitutional right under Article 300A. This aimed to reduce excessive litigation and protect public welfare projects.

Impacts due to the shift from a Socialistic to a Market-Driven Economy:

• Impact of Economic Policies: The socialistic policies of the early decades after independence focused on land reforms, nationalization of industries, high taxation rates, and regulations on private enterprise. These policies aimed to reduce inequality and redistribute wealth but were criticized for stifling growth and leading to inefficiencies.
• Changes in Taxation: Over the years, there have been significant changes in taxation policies, including the abolition of estate duty in 1985 and wealth tax in 2016. Income tax rates were also reduced considerably, reflecting a shift towards a more business-friendly environment.
• Growing Inequality: Despite economic growth, there has been a growing concern about inequality. Reports, such as the one by the World Inequality Lab, highlight the widening wealth and income gap, with a significant portion of the wealth concentrated among the top 10% of the population.
• Opposition Criticism: The ruling party and its supporters have criticized the Opposition, alleging that their proposed measures, such as the reintroduction of inheritance tax, would burden even the poorer sections of society.
• Legal Interpretation: The Supreme Court’s involvement in the debate is highlighted by its decision to constitute a nine-judge Bench to interpret whether Article 39(b) of the Constitution, which pertains to the distribution of material resources for the common good, includes private resources.
• Central Question of the debate: The central question in the current debate revolves around the balance between economic policies that promote growth and efficiency versus those aimed at reducing inequality and ensuring social justice.

Way forward: 

• Inclusive Growth: While promoting innovation and growth, it’s essential to ensure that the benefits are distributed equitably across all sections of society, especially the marginalized. Policies should aim for inclusive growth where the benefits reach those who need them the most.
• Debate and Adaptation: Economic policies should be framed after adequate debate and consideration, taking into account current economic models and global best practices. There should be a continuous process of adaptation and refinement to address emerging challenges and opportunities.
• Empowerment of Marginalized: Special attention should be given to empowering marginalized communities through targeted interventions such as education, skill development, access to resources, and opportunities for economic participation.

Mains PYQ: 

Q Critically discuss the objectives of Bhoodan and Gramdan movements initiated by Acharya Vinoba Bhave and their success. (UPSC IAS/2013)

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now

Why in the news? 

Attorney General R Venkataramani, on April 22, mentioned an application filed by the Centre to modify the Supreme Court’s 2012 judgement in the 2G spectrum scam case.

What is the 2G scam case?

• In 2008, under then Telecom Minister A Raja, the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) issued 2G spectrum licenses to specific telecom operators on a first-cum-first-serve basis.
• In 2009 ,the Central Vigilance Commission directed the CBI to investigate claims that there were illegalities in the allocation of licenses, following which the CBI filed a first information report against unknown officers of the DoT, private persons and companies.
• In the meantime, the Centre for Public Interest Litigation and Subramanian Swamy filed petitions at the Supreme Court alleging a Rs 70,000 crore scam in the grant of telecom licenses in 2008.
• In 2010, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) filed a report claiming that the allocation had caused a loss of Rs 1.76 lakh crores to the public exchequer. Raja resigned shortly after.
• In 2011 the CBI filed its first chargesheet, in which Raja was an accused.
• In February 2012, the Supreme Court cancelled the 122 licenses granted during Raja’s tenure. The court found that Raja had allocated licenses in 2008 based on 2001 prices in order to benefit specific private telecom operators.

Why is the Centre seeking a modification of the apex court’s decision?

• Need for Non-commercial Use: The Centre highlights that spectrum allocation is essential not only for commercial telecommunication services but also for public interest functions such as security, safety, and disaster preparedness. These functions may not always align with the profit-oriented nature of auction processes.
• Situational Preferences: The Centre argues that there are situations where auctions are not technically or economically preferred or optimal. This could include scenarios where there is a one-time or sporadic use of spectrum, which may not justify the complexities and costs associated with conducting auctions.
• Court’s Clarification on Auctions: The Centre refers to the Supreme Court’s clarification in September 2012, stating that the auction method prescribed in 2012 was not a constitutional principle and not an absolute or blanket statement applicable across all natural resources. The Court expressed respect for the executive’s discretion in such matters.
• Seeking Clarity for Administrative Process: In light of the Court’s clarification, the Centre seeks clarity on whether it can allocate 2G spectrum in the future through an administrative process if determined through due process and in accordance with the law. This indicates a desire for flexibility in spectrum allocation methods based on situational considerations and public interest needs.

Conclusion: 

Need to implement transparent processes for the allocation of public resources such as spectrum. Clearly outline the criteria, procedures, and timelines for allocation, and ensure that these are accessible to all stakeholders.Establish independent oversight bodies or regulatory agencies to monitor and audit the allocation process.

Mains PYQ:

Q What is mean by public interest? What are the principles and procedures to be followed by the civil servants in public interest? (UPSC IAS/2018)

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now