NEW DELHI, Nov 5:  In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India, led by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, clarified that not all privately owned properties qualify as “material resources of the community” under Article 39(b) of the Constitution. The landmark judgment, delivered by a nine-judge bench on Tuesday, aims to delineate the relationship between individual property rights and community welfare.

The bench, which included Justices Hrishikesh Roy, B V Nagarathna, J B Pardiwala, Sudhanshu Dhulia, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, Satish Chandra Sharma, and Augustine George Masih, issued a three-part verdict. Chief Justice Chandrachud emphasized that while private property could constitute a “material resource of the community,” it does not mean that every privately owned asset falls into this category. Justice Nagarathna expressed a partially concurring opinion, while Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia dissented.

This ruling follows the court’s deliberations that began on May 1, during which justices expressed concerns that interpreting all private property as part of community resources might deter investment in India, as it could undermine the security of private property rights.

During the hearings, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranaryanan cited 16 previous judgments interpreting material resources to potentially include private properties. However, this latest ruling seeks to avoid an overly broad interpretation of Article 39(b), aiming for clarity on what constitutes communal resources.

The case stems from differing judicial interpretations from the 1978 State of Karnataka and Another vs. Shri Ranganatha Reddy and Another case, which addressed the nationalization of road transport services. Justice V R Krishna Iyer had suggested that material resources could encompass both natural and artificial resources, regardless of ownership. However, Justice N L Untwalia noted that the majority did not support this interpretation, leading to the current clarification.

Article 39(b) of the Constitution, part of the Directive Principles of State Policy, mandates that the state ensure the equitable distribution of material resources for the common good. This recent judgment reinforces a selective application of this principle, making it clear that not all private properties can be deemed community resources, thus maintaining a balance between individual rights and community needs.