In a landmark ruling, a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court has determined that not all private properties can be taken over by the state under Article 39(b) of the Indian Constitution. The judgment clarified that privately owned properties do not inherently qualify as “material resources of the community” and, therefore, cannot be acquired solely to serve the “common good.”
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, authoring the majority opinion, stated that including all private properties as community resources under Article 39(b) would enforce an overly rigid economic model that emphasizes extensive state control over private resources. This interpretation, the court ruled, goes beyond the constitutional intent of fostering equitable resource distribution.
Article 39(b) mandates that the government should direct policies to ensure that “material resources of the community” are distributed to best serve public welfare. However, the court said that states may claim certain private properties in specific cases if they align with this goal.
The verdict, backed by Justices Hrishikesh Roy, JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, SC Sharma, and Augustine George Masih, overturned several post-1978 judgments that leaned toward socialist ideals, permitting states to acquire all private properties for the common good.
Justice BV Nagarathna issued a partial dissent, while Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia fully disagreed with the majority, providing a separate opinion on all points.
This decision concludes a long-standing case initially filed in 1992 and referred to a nine-judge bench in 2002, which aimed to clarify whether privately owned resources could be included under the term “material resources of the community” for equitable distribution.
(Inputs from ANI)
