Do Private Properties Come Under 'Material Resources Of Community' To Be Distributed For Common Good? Supreme Court Starts Hearing On Article 39(b)

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (April 23) commenced the hearing of the 9-judge constitution bench which is set to examine whether 'material resources of the community' includes privately owned resources in its ambit under Article 39(b) of the Constitution. The bench hearing the issue comprises CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices Hrishikesh Roy, B.V. Nagarathna, Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, Satish Chandra Sharma and Augustine George Masih.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 is finally being revisited in 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. This matter was first heard by a three-judge bench. 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.Should Keshavananda Bharati Be Revisited? Bench Refuses To Unsettle The Law On Article 31C At the outset of the hearing, one counsel submitted that to understand the nuances of Article 39(b), one has to dwell into the understanding of Article 31C. In doing so, the effectiveness of the law laid down in Keshavananda Bharati regarding Article 31C was spotlighted. Article 31C of the Constitution, in its original form, was introduced through the Constitution (25th Amendment) Act, 1971. As per the Article, two key things were introduced, (1) Even if a law conflicts with articles 14 (equality before the law) or 19 (freedom of speech, etc.), as long as it is trying to implement the goals set out in Part IV, it won't be considered invalid; (2) if a law declares its objective is to fulfil these broader goals of public good under the DPSPs, the effectiveness of such a law cannot be scrutinized under the principles of Judicial review. 31C. Saving of laws giving effect to certain directive principlesNotwithstanding anything contained in Article 13, no law giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing all or any of the principles laid down in Part IV shall be deemed to be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with, or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by article 14 or article 19 and no law containing a declaration that it is for giving effect to such policy shall be called in question in any court on the ground that it does not give effect to such policy:Provided that where such law is made by the Legislature of a State, the provisions of this article shall not apply thereto unless such law, having been reserved for the consideration of the President, has received his assent.However, in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of...

Do Private Properties Come Under 'Material Resources Of Community' To Be Distributed For Common Good? Supreme Court Starts Hearing On Article 39(b)

Anmol Kaur Bawa

Tags