GUWAHATI: The Supreme Court of India ruled that not all private properties can be classified as "material resources of the community" under Article 39(b) of the Constitution, which allows the state to acquire resources for the common good on Tuesday, November 5.
The ruling was delivered by a bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, alongside Justices Hrishikesh Roy, BV Nagarathna, Sudhanshu Dhulia, JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, Satish Chandra Sharma, and Augustine George Masih. A total of three judgments were produced in the case, with Chief Justice Chandrachud leading the majority opinion supported by six other judges, while Justice Nagarathna partially concurred, and Justice Dhulia dissented.
The majority opinion stated, "We hold that not every resource owned by an individual can be considered a material resource of a community solely because it meets the qualifier of material needs." The court clarified that for a privately-owned property to qualify as a material resource, it must satisfy certain criteria. The assessment under Article 39(b) must be specific to the context and consider various factors, including the nature of the resource, its characteristics, its impact on the community's wellbeing, its scarcity, and the consequences of its concentration in private hands.
Justice Nagarathna highlighted her concurrence with the majority on specific issues, providing commentary in response to Justice Dhulia's dissenting opinion. "How does ownership and control of privately owned material resources transform into material resources of the community for distribution to best serve the common good? This is the crux of my judgment," she stated.
In his dissent, Justice Dhulia argued that it is the prerogative of Parliament to determine how to control and distribute material resources.
This case arose from conflicting views established by the Supreme Court in 1978 regarding the nationalisation of road transport services. The nine-judge Constitution Bench reserved its judgment on May 2.
The main matter was Article 31C of the Indian Constitution, which protects laws enacted to secure the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) outlined in Part IV. Enacted during the 25th Amendment in 1971, Article 31C aimed to uphold specific DPSPs specified in clauses (b) and (c) of Article 39. This amendment faced challenges in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case, where the Supreme Court affirmed that the Constitution's basic structure could not be altered through amendments.
Article 31C was later revised by the 42nd Amendment during the Emergency, prioritising all DPSPs, not just those under Article 39(b) and (c). In 1980, the Supreme Court ruled in Minerva Mills v. Union of India, striking down certain provisions of the 42nd Amendment.
The current bench was tasked with clarifying whether the Minerva Mills judgment restored the pre-Kesavananda Bharati position or invalidated Article 31C entirely. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Article 31C, as upheld in Kesavananda Bharati, remains in effect.
The lead petition in this case was filed in 1992 by the Mumbai-based Property Owners' Association (POA), opposing Chapter VIII-A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) Act. This chapter, added in 1986, allows state authorities to acquire cessed buildings and their land if 70% of the occupants request restoration, a process rooted in Article 39(b) of the Constitution, which mandates the state to distribute ownership and control of material resources to best serve the common good.
