Wealth Inequality Still Enormous; Views Of Krishna Iyer & Chinnappa Reddy Haven't Lost Relevance : Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia In Dissent

In a nine-judge Constitution bench judgment where majority held that all private properties cannot form part of the 'material resources of the community' which the State is obliged to equitably redistribute as per the Directive Principles of State Policy under Article 39(b) of the Constitution, Justice Sudhandhu Dhulia dissented. The bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy, B.V. Nagarathna, Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, Satish Chandra Sharma and Augustine George Masih by 7:2 held that some private properties may come under Article 39(b) provided they meet the qualifiers of being a 'material resource' and 'of the community'. Whereas, Justice Nagarathna partially concurred. The majority disagreed with the view expressed by Justice Krishna Iyer in State of Karnataka v. Ranganatha Reddy (1978) that private properties can be regarded as community resources. Also, the judgment in Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Anr. (1983) which endorsed Justice Iyer's view was held to be erroneous.In a 97-page dissent, Justice Dhulia opined that he completely agreed with the majority judgment authored by the CJI on Article 31C that the unamended provision to the extent held valid in Kesavananda Bharati survives. However, he disagreed on the point of Article 39(b) and held that privately owned resources are a part of the 'material resources of the community' as against the observation of the majority that not all privately owned resources are 'material resources of the community'. Justice Dhulia stated that there was no need for the "pre-emptive determination" whereby the majority gives a non-exhaustive list of factors to determine which resources can be considered as "material resources". Constituent Assembly deliberately not limited 'material resources' Justice Dhulia's opinion dwells on the historical root of the issue including the Constituent Assembly debates and also engages with both the subjective and objective interpretation of the Constitution to explore what was in the minds of the Constitution framers and what were the objective realities of the time when it was written.Travelling through the historical background of the Constitution, Justice Dhulia answered the direct question by stating that there has not existed any judgment until now which has held that 'material recourses of the community' do not include private property.He referred to the Constituent Assembly debate where K. T. Shah proposed to elaborate as to what would be “material resources of the community”. According to him, these would include all the natural resources, minerals, etc, Justice Dhulia stated. He added that the amendment was turned down by the Assembly. Justice Dhulia said: "Dr. Ambedkar while denying this amendment also gave his reasons, which were that it is always better to keep some expressions in general terms since these are being incorporated in a Constitution. In case one elaborates the phrase “material resources”, the Constituent Assembly would be arresting and limiting its meaning. From this it can also be deducted that according to Dr. Ambedkar, a generalised term would include the entire resources of the community, including private property, and that also seemed to be the general consensus." He pointed out that it's important to note that in turning down the proposed amendment of Shah, the Constituent Assembly did not think it correct to limit “material resources” to specified resources alone and it was deliberately left as a broad-based term – “material resources of the community”. Justice Dhulia said: "In doing so, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar showed great wisdom and acumen as the Chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Constitution. He understood well that the Constituent Assembly is not in the process of making an ordinary statute, it was the Constitution which was being made. A Constitution has to be drafted in a manner to withstand the test of several years and generations, and therefore, by necessity certain provisions and words have to be in general terms, which is referred to as 'Majestic Generalizations'."Material resources in Article 39 (b) without privately owned resources being a part of it makes no sense Justice Dhulia held that there was only a 'doubt' raised whether material resources of the community would include private owned resources and said: "There should be no confusion that the expression “material resources of the community” used in Article 39(b) includes privately owned resources. This has been the consistent view of this Court, as already referred above. It could not have been otherwise. To my mind a reference to material resources in Article 39 (b) without privately owned resources being a part of it, does not even make any sense. It is only when we include privately owned resources, as a part of the “material resources of the community” that the purpose of Articles 38 and 39 is fully realised....

Wealth Inequality Still Enormous; Views Of Krishna Iyer & Chinnappa Reddy Haven't Lost Relevance : Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia In Dissent

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

"It is only when we include privately owned resources, as a part of the “material resources of the community” that the purpose of Articles 38 and 39 is fully realised. It is only then that the socialist and democratic principles incorporated in our Constitution get their true meaning."

Tags