Blitz Bureau
THE Supreme Court has held that all private properties can’t be considered “material resources of the community” under Article 39(b) of the Constitution to be taken over by State to subserve the “common good.”
A Bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud with Justices Hrishikesh Roy, BV Nagarathna, Sudhanshu Dhulia, JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, Satish Chandra Sharma and Augustine George Masih passed the ruling.
The majority verdict pronounced by the CJI overruled Justice Krishna Iyer’s previous ruling that all privately owned resources can be acquired by the State for distribution under Article 39(b) of the Constitution, reports Hindustan Times. A total of three judgments have been written in the case – with CJI Chandrachud leading the majority with six other judges, Justice Nagarathna partially concurring with the majority and Justice Dhulia dissenting.
“We hold that not every resource owned by an individual can be considered a material resource of a community only because it meets the qualifier of material needs,” the majority of the judges led by CJI Chandrachud said, according to Bar and Bench. The court held that for a privatelyowned property to qualify as a material resource of the community, it must meet certain tests first.
“The enquiry about the resource in question falls under Article 39(b) must be contest specific and subject to a non- exhaustive list of factors such as nature of resource, the characteristics, the impact of the resource on well- being of community, the scarcity of resource and consequences of such a resource being concentrated in the hands of private players, the public trust doctrine evolved by this court may also help identify resources which fall under ambit of material resource of a community,” the court said. While reading her decision, Justice Nagarathna said she had concurred with CJI-led majority on certain issues and written some opinion as response to Justice Dhulia’s judgment.
“How does ownership and control of material resources privately owned transform into material resources of the community for distribution as best to sub serve the common good. This is the crux of my judgment,” Justice Nagarathna said.
Justice Dhulia in his dissent said it is the Parliament’s prerogative to see how to control and distribute material resources.
The reference in the present matter arose in the context of the two conflicting views taken by the top court in 1978, in cases which dealt with the nationalisation of road transport services. The nine-judge Constitution Bench had on May 2 reserved its judgment in the matter.
The case essentially dealt with Article 31C of the Indian Constitution, which protects laws enacted to secure the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) laid down in Part IV of the Constitution.
