India’s Supreme Court has embarked on a significant hearing to determine the extent of the government’s authority to redistribute private properties under Article 39(b) of the Constitution. This provision, enshrined in the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP), mandates the state to ensure that ‘the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good.’ While DPSPs guide lawmaking, they are not directly enforceable in court.
The apex court’s examination stems from a challenge to an amendment to the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act (MHADA) in 1986. This amendment granted the state power to acquire and transfer privately owned ‘cessed’ buildings to ‘needy persons’ and occupants. The Property Owners’ Association in Mumbai contested this amendment, arguing that it violated their right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
The High Court dismissed their claim, relying on Article 31C, which safeguards laws enacted pursuant to DPSPs from challenges based on equality rights. However, the Association appealed to the Supreme Court, raising the fundamental question of whether ‘material resources of the community’ under Article 39(b) encompasses private properties like cessed buildings.
The Supreme Court’s scrutiny of this issue delves into the interpretation of Article 39(b) and its implications for private property rights. A seven-judge Bench previously acknowledged Justice Krishna Iyer’s influential minority opinion in the 1977 case State of Karnataka v Shri Ranganatha Reddy, which held that privately owned resources could constitute ‘material resources of the community.’ However, the majority in that case expressly distanced themselves from this view.
Subsequent judgments, including Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company v Bharat Coking Coal (1983) and Mafatlal Industries Ltd v Union of India (1996), upheld the acquisition of privately owned resources under the ambit of Article 39(b). However, these judgments did not explicitly address the minority opinion in State of Karnataka v Shri Ranganatha Reddy.
The current Supreme Court hearing is a nine-judge Bench, underscoring the significance of the constitutional interpretation at hand. The court’s decision will have far-reaching implications for the scope of private property rights and the government’s authority to redistribute resources in India.
