New Delhi: The Supreme Court, in a significant ruling, has stated that not all privately held properties can be classified as community resources subject to State acquisition for public benefit. This landmark judgment, delivered by a nine-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, was decided with an 8-1 majority.

Three separate opinions were issued: Chief Justice Chandrachud authored a primary judgment joined by six other justices, Justice BV Nagarathna wrote a concurring opinion with some differing views, and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia offered a dissent. The bench consisted of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, and Justices Hrishikesh Roy, BV Nagarathna, Sudhanshu Dhulia, JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, SC Sharma, and AG Masih.

The case centered on Article 31C of the Constitution, which safeguards certain State laws intended to achieve directive principles of state policy, including Article 39B. Article 39B mandates that State policies should aim to ensure that the community’s material resources are allocated in ways that best serve the common good.

Chief Justice Chandrachud addressed the scope of Article 39B, asking, “Does material resource of a community used in 39B include privately owned resources?” While theoretically possible, he concluded that not all privately owned resources qualify as community resources simply for serving material needs. He emphasized that a nuanced, case-specific assessment is essential, considering factors such as the nature and scarcity of the resource, its societal impact, and the implications of private ownership. The public trust doctrine, he suggested, could also help identify what constitutes a community resource.

This ruling revisits a 1977 Supreme Court decision where a seven-judge bench, in a close 4:3 decision, determined that not all private property fell under the community’s material resources. In a minority view, Justice Krishna Iyer had argued that both public and private resources should be treated as community resources under Article 39B.

In her separate opinion, Justice Nagarathna disagreed with the Chief Justice’s view on Justice Iyer's stance. She pointed out that Justice Iyer’s ruling reflected a time when the State held a dominant role in the economy, especially post-42nd Amendment, which enshrined socialism in the Constitution. She argued that past judicial interpretations should not be criticized simply due to subsequent economic shifts.

Expressing concern, she cautioned against future judges discrediting predecessors for decisions made in different economic and policy contexts, stating, “A paradigm shift should not lead to disparaging those who served under different circumstances.”