Are Private Properties Included In "Material Resource Of Community" Under Article 39(b)? Supreme Court 9-Judge Bench Reserves Judgment

The Supreme Court Constitution Bench today (May 1) reserved its judgement on the issue of whether private resources form part of the 'material resource of the community' under Article 39(b) of the Constitution. The Court concluded the hearing after 5 days of arguments raised on the issues of what constitutes a community, the subjective under tones of 'material resource' as well as the fate of Article 31C post the decision in Minerva Mills v. Union of India. The 9-judge bench considering the issue comprises Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices Hrishikesh Roy, B.V. Nagarathna, Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, Satish Chandra Sharma and Augustine George Masih. The appellants' side was mainly represented by Senior Advocate Zal T. Andhyarujina and Mr Sameer Parekh. The Union was represented by Attorney General Mr R Venkataramani, Solicitor General Mr Tushar Mehta. Senior Advocates Mr Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Harish Salve and Rakesh Dwivedi additionally raised arguments on behalf of thethe respondents' side. The batch of petitions initially arose in 1992 and was subsequently referred to a nine-judge bench in 2002. After more than two decades of being in limbo, it was taken for hearingin 2024. The main question to be decided is whether material resources of the community under Article 39(b) (one of the Directive Principles of the State Policy), which states that the government should create policies to share community resources fairly for the common good, includes privately owned resources. Article 39(b) reads as follows:"The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing-(b) that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good;”The issue in these petitions revolves around the constitutional validity of Chapter-VIIIA, introduced in 1986 as an amendment to the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act,(MHADA) of 1976. Chapter VIIIA deals with the acquisition of specific properties, wherein the State requires payment at a rate equivalent to one hundred times the monthly rent for the premises in question. Section 1A of the Act also incorporated through the 1986 amendment, states that the Act is designed to implement Article 39(b) of the Constitution. A three-judge bench first heard this matter. In 1996, it was referred to a five-judge bench, which then referred to a seven-judge bench in 2001. Eventually, in 2002, the matter was put before a nine-judge bench.The reference was with regard to the interpretation of Article 39(b) of the Constitution. Put shortly, in State of Karnataka v. Ranganatha Reddy & Anr. (1978), two judgments were delivered. The judgment delivered by Justice Krishna Iyer stated that material resources of the community covered all resources– natural and man-made, publicly and privately owned. The other judgment, delivered by Justice Untwalia, did not consider it necessary to express any opinion with regard to Article 39(b). However, the judgement stated that the majority of Judges did not subscribe to the view taken in respect of Article 39(b) by Justice Iyer. The view taken by Justice Iyer was affirmed by a Constitution Bench in the case of Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (1982). This was also affirmed by a judgment in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India.The seven-judge bench in the present matter stated that this interpretation of Article 39(b) required to be reconsidered by a Bench of nine learned Judges. It held–"We have some difficulty in sharing the broad view that material resources of the community under Article 39(b) covers what is privately owned."Accordingly, the matter was referred to a nine-judge bench in 2002. Arguments Raised By The Appellants The main contention raised by the appellants and other intervenors was that the term 'Material Resource' under Article 39(b) is to be interpreted as any resource which is capable of generating wealth - through goods or services for the larger good of the community. If the intention of the law was to include private resources within the meaning of 'Material resources', the drafter would have done so in order to avoid any possible future misinterpretations. Relying on paragraphs 80-81 of the decision in State of Karnataka v. Ranganatha Reddy & Anr., the Counsels then contended that Justice Krishna Iyer intended to keep the notion of 'nationalisation' into focus. However, the appellants cautioned against misunderstanding nationalisation to mean taking one's private property and giving to another. Concerns were also raised about the perceived extremity of Justice Krishna Iyer's advocacy for widespread acquisition and redistribution of private property. The court was cautioned against adopting an overly Marxist interpretation, emphasizing the need to balance redistribution objectives with property rights. Another area of discussion was the interrelation between 31C and...

Are Private Properties Included In "Material Resource Of Community" Under Article 39(b)? Supreme Court 9-Judge Bench Reserves Judgment

Anmol Kaur Bawa

Tags