Three judgments were written. Chief Justice Chandrachud wrote a judgment for himself and six colleagues, Justice BV Nagarathna wrote a concurrent but separate judgment, and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia dissented. The bench consisted of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice BV Nagarathna, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice JB Pardiwala, Justice Manoj Mishra, Justice Rajesh Bindal, Justice SC Sharma, and Justice AG Masih.
This matter is related to Article 31C of the Constitution, which protects laws made by the state to implement the Directive Principles of State Policy – the Constitution provides guidelines for the government to follow while making laws and policies.
Article 31C protects laws that include Article 39B, which provides that the state shall strive to minimize the concentration of wealth and means of production and ensure that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as to subserve the common good.
No Private Property Can be Considered Public
The Chief Justice commented, “Can the physical resources of the community, as referred to in 39B, include private resources? In principle, the answer is yes, but this court disagrees with Justice Ranganath Reddy’s minority view. We believe that not every resource owned by an individual can be considered a community resource simply because it meets the physical needs of the community.” He said, “The test for determining whether a resource falls under 39B should be fact-specific and depend on factors such as the nature, characteristics, and impact of the resource on the community, the scarcity of the resource, and the consequences of its concentration in private hands. The public trust doctrine developed by this court can also help identify resources that fall within the ambit of community resources.”
