In a historic decision, a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, has delivered a ruling with significant implications for private property rights in India. The judgment clarifies that not every piece of property owned by an individual qualifies as a "material resource of the community" under Article 39(b) of the Constitution, aiming to balance private ownership with broader social welfare.
This landmark judgment, which includes input from Justices Hrishikesh Roy, BV Nagarathna, JB Pardiwala, Sudhanshu Dhulia, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, Satish Chandra Sharma, and Augustine George Masih, emerged as a three-part decision. Chief Justice Chandrachud, speaking for himself and six other justices, emphasized that while private property could indeed serve as a community resource, this cannot be generalized to all privately held assets. Justice Nagarathna offered a partially concurring opinion, whereas Justice Dhulia dissented, adding depth to the diverse perspectives considered in this case.
This decision comes after months of careful deliberation, with the court having reserved its verdict on May 1. At the heart of these debates was a concern over whether applying Article 39(b) broadly could inadvertently deter investors, who might fear that their property could be requisitioned as a “community resource.”
During the hearings, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan highlighted 16 past judgments, showing how various Constitutional benches had occasionally viewed private property as part of the community’s resources. However, this latest decision provides a definitive framework, setting boundaries to prevent overly broad applications of Article 39(b). It aims to assure individuals and investors alike that their property rights remain protected under the law.
The ruling was shaped by historical complexities. It originated from differing interpretations in the 1978 State of Karnataka vs. Shri Ranganatha Reddy case, which involved nationalizing road transport services. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer had argued that both natural and artificial resources could count as community material resources, even if privately owned. Conversely, Justice Untwalia disagreed, prompting the current bench to address this longstanding debate.
Article 39(b) of India’s Directive Principles of State Policy directs the state to ensure that ownership of material resources is distributed to serve the common good. This recent ruling reinforces that while community welfare remains a priority, not every private property can be automatically deemed a communal asset. By ensuring a selective application of this principle, the Supreme Court has charted a middle path that respects both individual rights and the needs of society, creating a precedent that balances private ownership with social responsibility.
.jpeg&w=80&h=80&crop-to-fit)
