New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday (November 5) held that not every resource owned by an individual can be considered a material resource of a community only because it meets the qualifier of material needs.
A nine-judge constitution bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud delivered its verdict, which it had earlier reserved, on a legal question that whether private properties can be considered “material resources of the community” under Article 39(b) and taken over by State authorities for distribution to subserve the “common good”.
Three judgments have been delivered on the issue
CJI Chandrachud said that there are three judgments on the issue – one by him speaking for him and six other judges, other one by Justice BV Nagarathna which is partially concurring and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia has dissented.
Not every resource owned by an individual can be considered a material resource of a community: Apex Court
On the question that does material resource of a community used in 39B include private owned resources, CJI, Chandrachud, reading out the verdict, said, “Theoretically the answer is yes. The phrase may include privately owned resources. However, this court is unable to subscribe itself to the minority view of Justice Krishna Iyer in Ranganath Reddy. We hold that not every resource owned by an individual can be considered a material resource of a community only because it meets the qualifier of material needs.”
“The enquiry about the resource in question falls under 39B must be contest specific and subject to a non exhaustive list of factors such as nature of resource, the characteristics, the impact of the resource on well being of community, the scarcity of resource and consequences of such a resource being concentrated in the hands of private players, the public trust doctrine evolved by this court may also help identify resources which fall under ambit of material resource of a community,” CJI Chandrachud added.
Role of the court is not to lay down economic policy but to facilitate to lay down economic democracy
CJI Chandrachud, referring to the decision of Justice Iyer in Rangnath Reddy case, said that Justice Iyer’s judgment refers to Karl Marx and the judgment is rooted in the economic ideology that private property can be used by the state for the welfare of the people of the state and noted that the country’s economy has shifted from socialist approach to liberal economic regime and the role of the court is not to lay down economic policy but to facilitate to lay down economic democracy.
“We conclude – (a) Sanjiv Coke’s reliance on minority opinion in Raganath Reddy is incorrect, (b) not every resource owned by an individual meets the material resource merely because it qualifies the needs of a community and (c) term distribution has a wide connotation but may include the vesting of resources in the state,” CJI Chandrachud said.
