“Material resources of the community” under Article 39(b)

Source: The post “material resources of the community” under Article 39(b) has been created, based on the article “Case before Supreme Court: Can Govt redistribute privately owned property?” published in “Indian express” on 25th April 2024.

UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS Paper 2- polity- Indian constitution

News: The Supreme Court of India is hearing a case about whether the government can redistribute private property as “community resources” under the Constitution’s Article 39(b).

What are the judicial views on “material resources of the community” under Article 39(b)?

State of Karnataka v Shri Ranganatha Reddy (1977)

Majority Opinion: Private properties do not fall within the scope of “material resources of the community” under Article 39(b).

Minority Opinion by Justice Krishna Iyer: Stated that private properties should be considered community resources, aiming to facilitate redistribution in a socialist manner.

Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company v Bharat Coking Coal (1983)

Court Ruling: Confirmed the government’s right to nationalize coal mines by treating them as community resources under Article 39(b), aligning with Justice Iyer’s interpretation.

Judicial View: Extended the application of Article 39(b) to include the transformation of private property into public ownership.

Mafatlal Industries Ltd v Union of India (1996)

Opinion by Justice Paripoornan: Supported the broad interpretation of “material resources” in Article 39(b) to encompass both natural and man-made, as well as private and public properties.

What is the Current Legal Challenge?

Current Legal Challenge:

Case Context: The Supreme Court is currently reviewing a challenge to the 1986 amendment to the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, focused on cessed properties in Mumbai.

Specific Dispute: Property owners are challenging the amendment’s provision that allows the state to acquire properties if 70% of the occupants request it, with the aim of redistributing them to “needy persons.”

Legal Argument: The property owners contend that this amendment violates their Right to Equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.

Previous Judicial Decision: The Bombay High Court had ruled that laws promoting the Directive Principles, like Article 39(b), could not be challenged on the basis of violating the right to equality, per Article 31C of the Constitution.

Supreme Court Involvement: The case reached the Supreme Court in December 1992. The central question became whether “material resources of the community” under Article 39(b) includes privately owned resources like cessed buildings.

Way forward

The outcome of this hearing could redefine the scope of government power over private property in India, particularly in how wealth is distributed for public benefit. This decision will build on decades of legal interpretation and potentially affect property rights and social policies moving forward.

Question for practice:

Discuss how the interpretations of “material resources of the community” under Article 39(b) of the Indian Constitution have evolved through judicial decisions.