Supreme Court Limits Definition of "Material Resources of the Community"

The Supreme Court of India has ruled that not all privately owned properties can be considered "material resources of the community."

This means the State cannot take over all private property for the common good.

The decision was made by a nine-judge bench. Chief Justice DY Chandrachud led the bench.

The ruling was passed with 8 judges in agreement and 1 judge dissenting.

The case concerned Article 31C of the Constitution, which protects laws made by the State to fulfill directive principles of state policy.

These principles guide the government in making laws and policies. Article 39B directs the State to ensure that the ownership and control of material resources are distributed in a way that benefits the common good.

Chief Justice Chandrachud said that while privately owned resources could theoretically be included, not all of them can be considered material resources of the community.

He disagreed with the minority opinion of Justice Krishna Iyer in the Ranganath Reddy case.

Justice Iyer had argued that both public and private resources should fall under this category.

The Chief Justice said that whether a resource is considered a material resource depends on each case.

Factors to consider include the type of resource, its effect on the community, its availability, and the impact of private ownership.

He also noted that the public trust doctrine can help identify which resources qualify.

This decision follows a 1977 ruling by a seven-judge bench. In that case, the bench ruled by a 4-3 majority. They decided that privately owned property does not count as "material resources of the community."

In her separate judgment, Justice Nagarathna disagreed with the Chief Justice's comments on Justice Iyer’s opinion.