A nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India has commenced the process of interpreting Article 39(b) of the Constitution. This provision directs the state to secure the distribution of material resources in a manner that best serves the common good. The bench, which comprises Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and eight other justices, is examining whether this provision allows the government to treat and redistribute privately owned properties. The examination is based on Justice V R Krishna Iyer’s dissenting view in the Ranganatha Reddy case of 1977, which argued that community resources included privately owned properties. The conflation of community resources and private properties in subsequent judgments led to the matter being referred to a nine-judge bench in 2002 for interpretation.
Senior advocates Devraj, Zal Andhyarujina, and Sameer Parikh argued that privately owned properties should not be considered community resources. They labeled Justice Iyer’s view as a reflection of his Marxist socialist ideology, which they believe has no place in a democratic country governed by a Constitution that prioritizes the fundamental rights of citizens.
While the question being examined is not new, it has gained renewed attention in the current politically charged atmosphere. Rahul Gandhi’s recent speech, in which he discussed conducting a caste census and distributing the wealth of India based on population, has further intensified the debate. Prime Minister Modi responded by accusing the Congress party of wanting to take away private wealth for redistribution.
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta clarified that the only question before the court is the interpretation of Article 39(b) and not Article 31C, which provides safe harbor to laws enacted in pursuance of the directive principles. Mehta pointed out that the validity of Article 31C had been upheld by a 13-judge bench in the Kesavananda Bharti case. Chief Justice Chandrachud supported Mehta’s assertion and explained why the interpretation of Article 39(b) needs to be conducted by a nine-judge bench.
The bench recognized the need for this interpretation due to the conflicting judgments on the relationship between community resources and privately owned properties. The Ranganatha Reddy case clarified that privately owned properties are not considered material resources of the community. However, in the Sanjeev Coke case of 1983, a five-judge bench relied on Justice Iyer’s dissenting view, disregarding the majority opinion in the Ranganatha Reddy case. Additionally, in the Mafatlal Industries case of 1997, the Supreme Court opined that Article 39(b) requires interpretation by a nine-judge bench as it was difficult to accept the broad view that community resources include privately owned properties.
The bench also discussed the distribution of excess agricultural land among poor peasants in the 1960s. The advocates argued that while the state has the power to acquire land for public purposes, redistributing privately owned properties to the poor would leave the original owners without any means. Arguments on this matter will continue on Wednesday.
