• The preamble of the Constitution is dedicated to securing social and economic justice, liberty, and equality for all citizens.
• Part III outlines fundamental rights ensuring liberty and equality, while Part IV encompasses the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP).
• These principles serve as guidelines for both central and state governments to achieve social and economic justice in the nation.
• Unlike the enforceable fundamental rights in Part III, the DPSP is not subject to court enforcement but remains integral to governance.
• Article 39(b) and (c) of Part IV specifically address economic justice, emphasizing the equitable distribution of material resources for the common good and preventing wealth concentration to the detriment of society.

4. Historical Context of Property Rights in the Constitution

• Initially, the Constitution enshrined the right to property as a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(f), ensuring compensation by the state in case of property acquisition (Article 31).
• At independence, property rights, particularly related to agricultural and other lands, were significant.
• Land reforms and public infrastructure development necessitated government acquisition of such estates.
• Due to resource constraints and the need for flexibility in land acquisition, amendments were introduced, notably exceptions under Articles 31A, 31B, and 31C.

• The Supreme Court, in various cases, explored the interplay between fundamental rights and the DPSP, particularly concerning property rights.
• In the Golak Nath case (1967), the Court asserted that fundamental rights couldn't be compromised to implement DPSP.
• Subsequently, the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) validated Article 31C, subject to judicial review.
• In the Minerva Mills case (1980), the Court emphasized the harmony between fundamental rights and DPSP.
• In 1978, to streamline property-related litigation, the 44th Amendment Act removed property rights as a fundamental right, repositioning it under Article 300A as a constitutional right.
• The right to private property remains significant, requiring state acquisition laws to be for public purposes and entail adequate compensation.

5. Evolution of Economic Policies

• In the decades following independence, Indian governments embraced a socialist economic model. Land acquisition laws targeted zamindars and large landlords for public purposes. Nationalization of banking and insurance, along with high direct taxes and regulations like the MRTP Act, aimed to reduce inequality and redistribute wealth. However, these measures stifled growth and led to income/wealth concealment, with taxes like estate duty and wealth tax proving inefficient.
• In the 1990s, India transitioned from a closed economy to liberalization, globalization, and privatization. The 1991 industrial policy focused on empowering market forces, enhancing efficiency, and reforming industrial structures. Repealing the MRTP Act and reducing income tax rates were key steps. Estate duty was abolished in 1985 and wealth tax in 2016.
• While the market-driven approach lifted many out of poverty, it also exacerbated inequality. A report by the World Inequality Lab highlights significant wealth and income disparities, with the top 10% holding a majority share while the bottom 50% possess significantly less.
• The Congress, in its Lok Sabha election manifesto, pledges measures to assist the poor, including financial aid and wealth distribution surveys. Rahul Gandhi emphasizes addressing inequality. The ruling party, led by the Prime Minister, accuses the opposition of intending to reintroduce inheritance taxes, even affecting poorer sections.
• The Supreme Court has convened a nine-judge Bench to clarify whether Article 39(b) encompasses private resources, indicating a pivotal legal interpretation in the ongoing debate over wealth redistribution.

6. The way forward

Widening income inequality is a global challenge linked to open-market economies. However, governments must ensure the most vulnerable aren't left behind. While past policies with very high taxes and wealth redistribution didn't work perfectly, neglecting the poor is unacceptable. The key is to find a balance. We need to foster innovation and economic growth, but also ensure everyone benefits, especially those on the margins. The best policies will vary based on current economic realities and require open discussion. Ultimately, the goal remains constant: achieving economic justice for all, as promised by our Constitution.