‘Not every property owned by individual can be material resource of community’: SC 9-judge Bench

New Delhi: Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud presided over a nine-judge Supreme Court panel on Tuesday, which ruled that not all private property resources owned by an individual qualify as "material resources of community" under Article 39(b) of the Constitution.

“Private property may form ‘material resource of community’, but not every resource owned by an individual can be said to be material resource of community,” the Constitution bench said in a three-part judgment.

The bench also comprised Justices Hrishikesh Roy, B V Nagarathna, J B Pardiwala, Sudhanshu Dhulia, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, Satish Chandra Sharma and Augustine George Masih. “There are 3 judgments. one by me speaking for me and 6 others. The other one by Justice Nagarathna which is partially concurring and the third by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia who has dissented,” the CJI said on Tuesday, Indian Express reported.

The Tuesday hearing comes after the bench deferred its decision on May 1. In the prior hearing, the Supreme Court stated that holding every individual's private resource as part of the community's material resources would be "far-fetched". It will also deter investors who are concerned about the level of protection they would receive, the Supreme Court added. The statements came as Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranaryanan argued that 16 decisions by various Constitution benches have consistently construed material resources to include private property and resources. The Supreme Court heard a reference to it.

The reference came in the context of the two perspectives expressed by the judges in the 1978 decision State of Karnataka And Anr Etc versus Shri Ranganatha Reddy & Anr. The case concerned the nationalisation of road transport services. Justice V R Krishna Iyer believed that the community's material resources would comprise both natural and man-made resources, as well as publicly and privately owned assets. The alternative judgement, authored by Justice N L Untwalia, said that the majority of judges did not subscribe to Justice Iyer's interpretation of Article 39(b). Justice Iyer's position was reinforced in the 1982 case Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd And Another.

Article 39(b) in the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) says that “the state shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing- that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good”. Article 39(c) states that “the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detr

iment”.