In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has set limits on the power of state governments to acquire private property under Article 39(b) of the Constitution. This provision, part of the Directive Principles of State Policy, advocates for the equitable distribution of resources for the common good. The ruling, delivered by a nine-judge bench headed by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, clarifies that not all privately owned property can be acquired by the state under this article.
While acknowledging the need for equitable resource distribution, the court emphasized that Article 39(b) applies only to ‘material resources’ that impact the community. Resources that do not meet this criterion are not subject to acquisition. The court’s decision clarifies that the state’s power to acquire private property under Article 39(b) is not unlimited and requires a thorough assessment of the resource’s role in serving the common good.
This significant ruling concludes a legal battle that has spanned over two decades. The case, which began with petitions filed in 1992, was referred to a nine-judge bench in 2002. At the heart of the issue was whether the term ‘material resources of the community,’ as outlined in Article 39(b), should include privately owned property. The appellants argued that the framers of the Constitution would have explicitly included private property if that was their intent.
The Supreme Court’s ruling, while reinforcing the goal of equitable resource distribution, establishes clear limits on the state’s power to acquire private property. This decision is expected to have wide-reaching implications, particularly in land acquisition policies and development projects. The court’s focus on defining ‘material resources’ based on their community impact highlights the need for a balanced approach in addressing property rights and resource distribution.
