Whether private resources fall within the definition of ‘material resource of the community’ under Article 39(b), SC reserves judgment
On May 01, 2024, the Supreme Court (SC) of India reserved its judgment on the question ‘whether private resources fall within the definition of material resource of the community under Article 39(b) of the Constitution of India (one of the Directive Principles of the State Policy),’ after hearing the matter for 5 days. Article 39(b) of the Constitution states “The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good.” The nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court constituting Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice Rajesh Bindal, Justice Augustine George Masih, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice Manoj Misra, and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma heard the matter.
During the proceedings, Senior Advocate Zal T. Andhyarujina and Senior Advocate Mr. Sameer Parekh represented the appellant’s side. Solicitor General Mr. Tushar Mehta and Attorney General Mr. R. Venkataramani appeared for the Union. Senior Advocate Harish Salve, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, and Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi raised arguments on behalf of the respondents. While hearing the matter yesterday (May 01), the CJI said “You tell a manufacturer of semiconductor chips, situated somewhere in Taiwan to manufacture semiconductor chips in India because India needs semiconductor chips, but sorry this is a material resource of the community, we might just take it away. They will say sorry, I don’t want to invest in your country if this is the level of protection which you give me.”
Sankaranarayana, while presenting his contentions, cited an example of a businessman setting up a vaccine manufacturing facility. He added that it may have been a purely private resource at that time but after the Covid pandemic the same becomes important for the entire community. Following this, the CJI said “We are not saying that private properties are outside the scope of 39(b). What we are saying is that there must be some parameters laid down. Otherwise, the logic of ‘Ranganath Reddy and Sanjeev Coke’ is that an individual is a part of the community and therefore everything owned by the individual is part of the community.” Further, Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan laid down certain definitions for what may or may not fall under Article 39(b) and said that the same ‘could come back and boomerang on us, on a future date’.
Furthermore, Justice Nagarathna said, “it is not just material resources per se, it is material resources of the community, and it is for the purpose of distribution. Now, if you read this in the context of ‘clause c’ of Article 39, where it speaks about the operation of economic system, distribution is an aspect of the economic system…So it should be read in that context so that the material resources of the community is so distributed that ultimately, the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment.” She added, “both this have to be read. So, the question is if a person invests, puts up a huge factory, starts production tomorrow, it cannot be said that it is going to be taken away for the purpose of distribution to the workers. That is not the aim of that.” After hearing the matter for 5 days, the bench reserved its judgment.
