In a landmark judgment delivered by a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India, led by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, it was declared that not every property owned by an individual qualifies as a “material resource of the community” under Article 39(b) of the Constitution. The verdict, issued on Tuesday, aimed to clarify the extent to which private property can be regarded as a communal resource, striking a balance between individual property rights and community welfare.
The bench, including Justices Hrishikesh Roy, B V Nagarathna, J B Pardiwala, Sudhanshu Dhulia, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, Satish Chandra Sharma, and Augustine George Masih, issued a three-part judgment. Chief Justice Chandrachud, speaking for himself and six other justices, stated, “Private property may form ‘material resource of community’, but not every resource owned by an individual can be said to be such.” Justice Nagarathna delivered a partially concurring opinion, while Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia dissented.
This ruling comes after the court reserved its verdict on May 1, following extensive deliberations on the implications of considering all private property as part of the community’s material resources. Such an interpretation, the court feared, would stretch the constitutional provision too far and potentially deter investors, concerned about the security of their investments in India.
During the hearings, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranaryanan referenced 16 prior judgments where various Constitution benches interpreted material resources to potentially include private properties. However, this latest decision draws a clear distinction, aiming to prevent the overly broad application of Article 39(b).
The case emerged from differing judicial opinions in the 1978 State Of Karnataka And Anr Etc vs Shri Ranganatha Reddy & Anr case, which dealt with the nationalization of road transport services. Justice V R Krishna Iyer had posited that material resources could include both natural and artificial resources, whether publicly or privately owned. In contrast, Justice N L Untwalia noted that the majority did not share this view, leading to the current clarification.
Article 39(b) is part of the Directive Principles of State Policy, mandating that the state should ensure that ownership and control of material resources are distributed to best serve the common good. The recent judgment reinforces the selective application of this principle, specifying that not all private property can be automatically deemed a community resource, thus ensuring a more nuanced interpretation that respects both individual rights and community needs.
