Source: Live Law
Context: The Supreme Court recently held in a 7:2 decision that not all private properties can be classified as “material resources of the community” under Article 39(b) of the Indian Constitution.
Background:
- Article 39(b): Part of the Directive Principles of State Policy, this article mandates that the state should direct policies to distribute ownership and control of resources in a way that best serves the common good.
- Key Cases:
- State of Karnataka v. Ranganatha Reddy (1978): Justice Krishna Iyer argued that material resources of the community included all resources, whether publicly or privately owned.
- Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (1982): Affirmed Justice Iyer’s view on the broader interpretation of Article 39(b).
- Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India: Supported the notion that material resources of the community could include privately owned assets.
About 2024 Case Overview:
- Case name: Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra
- Outcome:
The Supreme Court clarified that:
-
- Only certain private resources, based on factors like their impact on the community and scarcity, could be considered material resources under Article 39(b).
- The judgment overturned the broad interpretation by Justice Iyer, asserting that not all private properties qualify as resources to be equitably distributed by the state.
- The court upheld that material resources should primarily cover state-owned resources or private resources with significant community value.
Insta Links:
