A nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court, while delivering a verdict on whether the State can take over private properties to distribute to subserve the common good, ruled that all private properties are not material resources and hence cannot be taken over by states.
The majority opinion authored by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud held that all private properties cannot form part of the ‘material resources of the community’ under Article 39(b) of the Constitution and can’t taken over by State authorities to subserve the “common good”.
Article 39(b) of the Constitution provides that the state shall direct policy to ensure “ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to sub-serve the common good”.
The majority verdict said that the interpretation that every privately owned property could be used by the state as a material resource to “subserve the common good” postulated a “rigid economic theory which advocates greater state control of private resources”.
However, it said states can stake claims over private properties in certain cases.
The majority verdict given by CJI Chandrachud, Justices Hrishikesh Roy, JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, SC Sharma and Augustine George Masih overruled several verdicts post-1978 that had adopted the socialist theme and ruled that states could take over all private properties for the common good.
Justice BV Nagarathna partially disagreed with the majority judgement and gave separate judgement, while Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia dissented on all aspects.
The verdict of the top court came on a batch of petitions that initially arose in 1992 and were subsequently referred to a nine-judge bench in 2002.
The main question to be decided was whether material resources of the community under Article 39(b), which states that the government should create policies to share community resources fairly for the common good, includes privately owned resources.