Not all privately owned properties qualify as community resources that the State can take over for the common good, the Supreme Court ruled in a landmark verdict today. The nine-judge Constitution bench, led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, delivered the judgment with an 8-1 majority.
Three judgments were authored in this case: the Chief Justice wrote one for himself and six colleagues, Justice BV Nagarathna produced a concurrent but separate judgment, and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia issued a dissenting opinion. The judges on the bench included Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice Nagarathna BV, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice JB Pardiwala, Justice Manoj Misra, Justice Rajesh Bindal, Justice SC Sharma, and Justice AG Masih.
The case pertains to Article 31C of the Constitution, which protects laws made by the State to fulfill the directive principles of state policy—guidelines outlined by the Constitution for government legislation and policy-making. Among the laws that Article 31C safeguards is Article 39B, which directs the State to ensure that the ownership and control of the community’s material resources are distributed to best serve the common good.
In addressing this matter, the Chief Justice remarked, “Does material resource of a community used in 39B include privately owned resources? Theoretically, the answer is yes, the phrase may include privately owned resources. However, this court is unable to subscribe to the minority view of Justice Iyer in Ranganath Reddy. We hold that not every resource owned by an individual can be considered a material resource of a community solely due to the qualifier of material needs.”
He emphasized that the inquiry regarding the resource in question, as per 39B, must be context-specific and involve a non-exhaustive list of factors, such as the nature of the resource, its characteristics, its impact on community well-being, resource scarcity, and the consequences of private concentration. Furthermore, the public trust doctrine developed by this court may assist in identifying resources that fall under the scope of material resources for the community.
In a pivotal 1977 ruling, a seven-judge bench had decided, with a 4:3 majority, that not all privately owned property fell within the realm of material resources of the community. A minority opinion expressed by Justice Krishna Iyer posited that both public and private resources should be included.
Justice Nagarathna, in her separate judgment, voiced disagreement with the Chief Justice’s remarks regarding Justice Iyer’s ruling. “Justice Krishna Iyer adjudicated on the material resources of a community in the context of a constitutional and economic structure that prioritized the State broadly. The 42nd amendment even incorporated socialism into the Constitution. Can we discredit former judges merely for reaching a different interpretative outcome?”
She continued, noting concerns about how future judicial brethren might perceive past judges. “It is of concern how the judicial brethren of posterity will view the judges of the past, potentially losing sight of the era in which they practiced and the socio-economic policies they pursued. Simply because of the liberalization paradigm shift after the 1991 reforms, we cannot label the judges of yesteryears as having done disservice to the Constitution. Such observations emerge from this court are unfounded and should not disregard the oath of office. Judges of the future should not feel confined by such past interpretations,” she asserted.
