Not all private properties can be termed ‘material resources of community’, rules SC

New Delhi, Nov, 05
Not all private properties can be termed “material resources of the community” under Article 39(b) of the Constitution meant to be taken over by the State to subserve the “common good”, rules a nine-judge Constitution Bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud.
The majority verdict authored by the CJI (for himself and six other judges), however, said some private properties may come under Article 39(b) provided they are “material” and belong to the community and the Government can requisition such private property and for larger “public good”.
To decide if a particular private resource was a “material resource,” the court must determine if its distribution would subserve “common good”, the CJI said while pronouncing the verdict.
Whether a resource falls within the ambit of “material resource of community” must be based on the nature of the resource in question, its characteristics, its impact on the well-being of the community, the scarcity of the resource, and the consequence of such a resource being concentrated in the hands of private players, the CJI said, adding, the public trust doctrine can also be applied to decide it.
Besides CJI Chandrachud, other judges on the Bench were Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice BV Nagarathna, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice JB Pardiwala, Justice Manoj Misra, Justice Rajesh Bindal, Justice SC Sharma and Justice AG Masih. The Bench had reserved its verdict on the contentious issue on May 1.
There were three judgments on the contentious issue – one each authored by CJI Chandrachud (for himself and six other judges), Justice Nagarathna (partially concurring) and Justice Dhulia (dissenting).
The Bench unanimously held that Article 31C – which protects laws giving effect to certain directive principles — remained in force to the extent it was upheld in the Kesavanda Bharati case in 1973.
In the run up to the 2024 Lok Sabha polls, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi had talked about growing inequality and the need for wealth redistribution. “First, we will conduct a caste census to know the exact population and status of backward castes, SCs, STs, minorities and other castes. After that, the financial and institutional survey will begin. Subsequently, we will take up the historic assignment to distribute the wealth of India, jobs and other welfare schemes to these sections based on their population,” he had said at a rally in Hyderabad.
The nine-judge Constitution Bench was asked to decide whether private properties can be considered “material resources of the community” within the meaning of Article 39(b) of the Constitution and consequently, taken over by the State to subserve the common good.
Article 39(b) in the Directive Principles of State Policy says that “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”.
The issue also involved interpretation of Article 39(c) which says “the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment”.
While dealing with nationalisation of state road transport services, the top court had in the State Of Karnataka And Another Etc versus Shri Ranganatha Reddy & Another (1978) had given two opinions. The minority view taken by Justice VR Krishna Iyer held that material resources of the community would include both natural and man-made, publicly and privately owned resources. The other view articulated by Justice NL Untwalia, however, said the majority of judges did not subscribe to the view taken in respect of Article 39(b) by Justice Iyer.
The matter was referred to the nine-judge Bench as Justice Iyer’s minority view was affirmed in 1982 in Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd And Another. It was further affirmed by a verdict in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (1996).
On Tuesday, the majority judgment by CJI Chandrachud held that the phrase “material resources of the community” may theoretically include privately owned resources, however, the expansive view expressed by Justice Krishna Iyer’s minority verdict in Ranganath Reddy (1978) and relied on by Justice Chinnappa Reddy in Sanjeev Coke can’t be accepted.