Supreme Court Ruling: Not All Private Property Can Be Acquired by States Under Article 39(b)

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling, stating that states cannot acquire every privately owned property of citizens under Article 39(b) of the Indian Constitution. Article 39(b), part of the Directive Principles of State Policy, emphasizes the equitable distribution of community resources for the common good. However, the Court clarified that not all private property fits this definition.

Key Points of the Ruling

The ruling was given by a nine-judge bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and included Justices Hrishikesh Roy, JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, SC Sharma, and Augustine George Masih.

The Court acknowledged that some privately owned resources could qualify as material resources under Article 39(b), but only if these resources have an impact on the community. The Court emphasized that a private resource must benefit the common good to be considered a material resource.

Chief Justice Chandrachud explained, “Not every resource owned by an individual can be considered a material resource of the community merely because it meets the qualifier of material needs.” This means that private property cannot automatically be classified as a public resource just because it serves a material purpose.

Case Background: A Legal Battle Since 1992

The case has a long history, dating back to 1992, when a batch of petitions were filed challenging the acquisition of private property under Article 39(b). These petitions were later referred to the nine-judge bench in 2002. After more than two decades in legal limbo, the case was finally heard in 2024.

The core issue in the case was whether privately owned property could be included under the term “material resources of the community,” as described in Article 39(b). The appellants argued that the Constitution's drafters would have explicitly included private property if that had been their intention.

Majority View: A Balanced Approach

In the majority opinion, CJI Chandrachud acknowledged that while the term “material resources of the community” could theoretically cover privately owned assets, it would not be appropriate to classify all private property as public resources. The Court rejected the broad interpretation of this term given by Justice Krishna Iyer in the 1978 Ranganath Reddy case, which had included private property as part of the community's material resources.

Justice BV Nagarathna delivered a partially concurring opinion, agreeing that private property, excluding personal items like household goods, could be considered a community resource if it were acquired by the state or donated for public use.

Dissenting Opinion

In contrast, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia offered a disagreeing opinion, presenting a different interpretation of how Article 39(b) should apply to private property. However, the full details of his reasoning are yet to be made public.

Also read: U.S. Presidential Election Results May Take Days to Finalize

SUMMARY

The Supreme Court ruled that not all private property can be taken by the state under Article 39(b) of the Indian Constitution. This article talks about distributing resources for the common good, but the Court clarified that only some private property that benefits the community can be considered a material resource. The ruling came after a case that started in 1992 and was finally decided in 2024. While some justices agreed that private property could be considered public if acquired by the state or donated, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia disagreed, though his reasoning is not yet public.