In a landmark ruling, a nine-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud has clarified that not all private properties fall under the scope of “material resources of the community” as defined by Article 39(b) of the Constitution. The article allows the state to requisition resources for the “common good.” However, the court held that only certain types of private properties, which are significant to the community’s welfare, may be subject to this clause.
The majority judgment, written by CJI Chandrachud on behalf of himself and six other judges, stated that for a private property to be considered a “material resource,” it must meet specific criteria that demonstrate its relevance to the community’s collective welfare. The judgment highlighted the need to assess the nature of the resource, its scarcity, and the potential impact of its private ownership on public well-being. Additionally, the “public trust doctrine” may be applied in evaluating if a resource falls within the ambit of Article 39(b).
This recent verdict comes as political discussions on wealth redistribution gain traction, with Congress leader Rahul Gandhi advocating for policies addressing economic inequality ahead of the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. Gandhi has called for measures to distribute wealth and resources based on population demographics, following caste census data, to achieve greater social equity.
The court’s ruling also touches on Article 39(c), which discourages the concentration of wealth in a way that could harm the community. The Bench unanimously upheld the continued validity of Article 31C, which protects laws that implement Directive Principles like Articles 39(b) and 39(c) to a limited extent.
The decision involved a historical interpretation of Article 39(b), revisiting the 1978 State of Karnataka vs. Shri Ranganatha Reddy case, where Justice Krishna Iyer had argued for an inclusive view of “material resources,” encompassing both public and private resources. However, the current Bench has now held that this view does not align with the constitutional framers’ intent and thus cannot be broadly applied.
In conclusion, CJI Chandrachud’s majority ruling specifies that while certain private resources might be requisitioned by the state, a sweeping interpretation of “material resources” that includes all private assets is not constitutionally mandated. This verdict provides a nuanced understanding of Article 39(b), allowing the state limited power to requisition private property for public benefit based on its unique significance to the community.
