A 9-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court ruled on November 5, 2024, that the government does not have the power to acquire and redistribute all privately owned properties by deeming them “material resources of the community,” as per Article 39(b) of the Constitution.
This decision has significant implications for property rights and the concept of ownership in relation to the community.
Key Issues Considered in the judgement:
- Article 31C’s Validity: Whether Article 31C, relating to the right to property, remains valid after various amendments and judicial rulings.
- Article 39(b) Interpretation: Whether the government can redistribute privately owned resources deemed “material resources of the community” to serve the common good.
Background of Article 31C:
- Initially protected laws aimed at redistributing resources for the public good under Articles 39(b) and (c).
- Modified by the 25th Amendment (1971) to shield specific laws from challenges under Articles 14, 19, and 31.
- The Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) limited this by establishing the “basic structure” doctrine, which prohibits certain constitutional changes.
42nd Amendment and Subsequent Rulings:
- In 1976, Article 31C was extended to protect all Directive Principles, which was struck down in the Minerva Mills case (1980).
- The 2024 ruling confirms the post-Kesavananda Bharati position, preserving Article 31C’s protection of Articles 39(b) and (c) only.
Interpretation of Article 39(b):
- Purpose: Article 39(b) guides the state in distributing “material resources of the community” for the common good, though it’s not enforceable in court.
- Key Cases: The court’s interpretation evolved, notably with:
-
- State of Karnataka v Shri Ranganatha Reddy (1977): Majority opinion held private resources are not necessarily community resources; Justice Krishna Iyer’s dissent would later influence future cases.
- Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company v Bharat Coking Coal (1983): Upheld nationalization of coal mines, affirming that Article 39(b) permits private-to-public wealth transfer.
Implications of the Judgment:
- Reaffirms property rights against broad government acquisition.
- Clarifies the balance between individual property rights and the state’s role in resource distribution as guided by the Directive Principles.
