New Delhi. The Supreme Court has made an important decision in a dispute over private property. In this case, a nine-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, while delivering the verdict, said that every private property resource owned by an individual cannot be considered a physical resource under Article 39 ( B) of the Constitution. The nine-judge bench also included Justices Hrishikesh Roy, BV Nagarathna, JB Pardiwala, Sudhanshu Dhulia, Manoj Mishra, Rajesh Bindal, Satish Chandra Sharma and Augustine George Masih. CJI DY Chandrachud said that there are three judgments, mine and that of 6 judges. Justice Nagarathna partially concurred and Justice Dhulia dissented.
The hearing took place today after the court reserved its verdict for May 1. In an earlier hearing, the top court had noted that it would be a stretch to consider every personal resource of an individual as part of the material resource of the community. The Supreme Court said it would also scare away investors who would be wary of the level of protection they would get. The comments came as senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan said that material resources have been consistently interpreted to include private property and private resources in 16 judgments of various constitutional courts. The high court heard a reference related to this.
The Supreme Court has made clear in its landmark decision that the government cannot acquire all private property. CJI DY Chandrachud set aside those decisions after 1978. This context arose in the context of two opinions expressed by the judges in the judgment delivered in 1978 in the case of State of Karnataka and Others etc. versus Sri Ranganatha Reddy and others. The case was related to the nationalization of road transport services. An opinion by Justice VR Krishna Iyer was that the material resources of the community would include both natural and man-made resources, publicly and privately owned. However, the second judgment written by Justice NL Untwalia said that the majority of judges did not agree with the approach taken by Justice Iyer regarding Article 39(B). Justice Iyer’s stand was further confirmed in the 1982 case Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company v Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Others.
Let us tell you that 39 (B) has been interpreted differently. Different sectors have been getting confused in the interpretation. Isn’t it clear from this what is a community resource and what is not? 39B comes in the fourth part of the Constitution. Article 39(c) establishes that the operation of the economic system does not give rise to a concentration of wealth and the means of production to the general detriment.
