Supreme Court
The Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench reserved its judgment on whether private resources constitute part of the ‘material resource of the community’ under Article 39(b) of the Constitution. After five days of hearings, the bench, consisting of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and eight other judges, concluded the arguments. The case examines the definition of ‘material resource,’ the scope of ‘community,’ and the relevance of Article 31C post the Minerva Mills verdict.
The bench’s composition includes prominent justices like Hrishikesh Roy and B.V. Nagarathna. Senior advocates Zal T. Andhyarujina and Sameer Parekh represented the appellants, while Attorney General R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the Union. Additionally, senior advocates Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Harish Salve, and Rakesh Dwivedi presented arguments on behalf of the respondents.
Originating in 1992, the case underwent multiple referrals before reaching the nine-judge bench. It centers on the interpretation of Article 39(b) concerning the fair distribution of material resources for the common good. Specifically, it scrutinizes Chapter-VIIIA of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, focusing on the acquisition of specific properties and its alignment with Article 39(b).
The bench deliberated on Justice Krishna Iyer’s expansive interpretation of ‘material resources’ and its implications for private ownership. The appellants argued for a broader definition, emphasizing resources’ potential to generate wealth for the community’s benefit. They cautioned against misinterpreting ‘nationalization’ as the outright expropriation of private property, advocating for a balanced approach that respects property rights.
Discussion also revolved around the relationship between Article 31C and Article 39(b) post-Minerva Mills. The appellants contended that Article 31C’s efficacy requires legislative intervention following the amendment’s nullification.
In contrast, the Union asserted the enduring validity of Article 39(b) within the framework of expanding constitutional principles. It highlighted the dynamic nature of community interactions in shaping ‘material resources’ and emphasized the state’s responsibility in promoting public goods for the common good.
The case raises fundamental questions about property rights, redistribution, and the role of the state in economic affairs. The bench’s judgment will have far-reaching implications for constitutional interpretation and governance.
Also Read: Rouse Avenue Court Denies Bail Extension For Businessman In Money Laundering Case
