Not All Private Property Is 'Material Resource Of Community' Which State Must Equally Distribute As Per Article 39(b) : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today (November 5) held by a majority of 7:2 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.The Court held some private properties may come under Article 39(b) provided they meet the qualifiers of being a 'material resource' and 'of the community'. The 9-judge bench comprised 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 majority opinion was authored by the CJI, while Justice BV Nagarathna partially concurred and Justice Dhulia dissented.Majority viewThe majority disagreed with the view expressed by Justice Krishna Iyer in State of Karnataka v. Ranganatha Reddy (1978) 1 SCR 641 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) 1 SCR 1000 which endorsed Justice Iyer's view was held to be erroneous."The direct question referred to this bench is whether the phrase 'material resources of the community' used in Article 39(b) includes privately owned resources. Theoretically, the answer is yes, the phrase may include privately owned resources. However, this Court is unable to subscribe to the expansive view adopted in the minority judgement authored by Justice Krishna Iyer in Ranganatha Reddy and subsequently relied on by this Court in Sanjeev Coke. Not every resource owned by an individual can be considered a 'material resource of the community' merely because it meets the qualifier of 'material needs'," the majority judgment written by CJI Chandrachud held.The single sentence observation in Mafatlal to the effect that "material resources of the community" include privately owned resources is not part of the ratio decidendi of the judgment and was not binding on the Court.The enquiry on whether a resource falls within the ambit of "material resource of community" must be based on the nature of the resource, the characteristics of the resource, the impact of the resource on the well-being of the community, the scarcity of the resource, and the consequence of such a resource being concentrated in the hands of private players. The public trust doctrine can also be applied here.There are various forms of resources, which may be privately owned, and inherently have a bearing on ecology and/or the well-being of the community. Such resources fall within the net of Article 39(b). To illustrate, non- exhaustively, there may exist private ownership of forests, ponds, fragile areas, wetlands and resource-bearing lands. Similarly, resources like spectrum, airwaves, natural gas, mines and minerals, which are scarce and finite, may sometimes be within private control.The term 'distribution' has a wide connotation. The various forms of distribution which can be adopted by the State can include vesting of the concerned resource in the State or nationalisation.The majority judgment also observed that the views expressed by Justice Krishna Iyer and Chinnappa Reddy were rooted in a particular economic ideology. The majority observed that the framers of the Constitution did not intend to bind the country with any specific economic dogma.The bench also unanimously held that Article 31C to the extent it was upheld in Kesavanda Bharati remains in force. Justice Nagarathna's views“Material resources” can in the first instance be divided into two basic categories, namely, (i) State owned resources which belong to the State which are essentially material resources of the community, held in public trust by the State; and (ii) privately owned resources. However, the expression “material resources” does not include “personal effects” or “personal belonging” of individuals, such as, clothing or apparel, household articles, personal jewellery and other articles of daily use belonging to the individuals of a household and which are intimate and personal in nature and use. Excluding “personal effects”, all other privately owned resources can be construed as “material resources”.Thus, all resources whether they are public resources or privately owned resources which come within the scope and ambit of the expression “material resources” as stated above are included within that expression.Private resources can be turned into material resources of the community by means such as (1) nationalisation; (2) acquisition; (3) operation of law ; (4) by purchase by state; (5) owner's donation.The “material resources of the community” have to be “distributed as best to subserve the common good”. Distribution could be in two ways:Firstly, by the State itself retaining the material resource for a public purpose and/or for public use; andSecondly, privately owned material resources when converted as...

Not All Private Property Is 'Material Resource Of Community' Which State Must Equally Distribute As Per Article 39(b) : Supreme Court

Anmol Kaur Bawa

Tags