ARTICLE 39(b)
Article 39(b) of the Constitution of India reads as follows:
“39. The state shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing.
(b) that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to serve the common good.”
Article 39(b) of the Indian Constitution outlines a principle of state policy regarding the ownership and control of material resources. According to this, the state’s policies should be focused on ensuring that the community’s material resources are owned and controlled in a way that best serves the interests of all. Essentially, it stresses the fair distribution of resources that promote societal well-being and people’s welfare.
This article is part of the “Directive Principles of State Policy,” which falls under Section IV of the Constitution. Although they are not immediately enforceable against citizens, these principles act as guidelines for the state when it comes to drafting legislation.
CASE SUMMARY
The Supreme Court commenced hearing on Tuesday, April 23, whether or not private property is one of the “material resources of the community” that the state is required by Article 39(b) of the Constitution to share fairly. This matter is being adjudicated by a bench of nine judges, which comprises Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Abhay S. Oka, B.V. Nagarathna, J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Ujjal Bhuyan, Satish Chandra Sharma, and Augustine George Masih.
The genesis of this matter dates back to 1992, when a series of petitions were initially filed concerning this issue. Subsequently, in 2002, the matter was referred to a bench comprising nine judges. However, it is noteworthy that the court is now revisiting this issue in 2024.
The issue pertaining to this case deals with the constitutional validity of Chapter VIIIA, introduced in 1986 as an amendment to the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act (MHADA) of 1976. This chapter primarily concerns the acquisition of certain properties, wherein the state mandates payment at a rate equivalent to one hundred times the monthly rent for the premises under consideration. Moreover, Section 1A of the Act, which was incorporated through the 1986 amendment, explicitly states that the purpose of the Act is to implement Article 39(b) of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court’s interpretation of Article 39(b) has important ramifications for the delicate balance between private property rights and the state’s obligation to promote public welfare as judicial proceedings progress. The final ruling will surely have an impact on future legal debates and policy choices in India on property rights and redistribution.
