🚨 UPSC EXAM NOTES presents the November edition of our comprehensive monthly guide. Access it  to enhance your preparation. We value your input - share your thoughts and recommendations in the comments section or via email at Support@upscexamnotes.com 🚨

Critical Topics and Their Significance for the UPSC CSE Examination on November 07, 2024

Daily Insights and Initiatives for UPSC Exam Notes: Comprehensive explanations and high-quality material provided regularly for students

Right to Property

For Preliminary Examination:  Current events of national and international importance

For Mains Examination: GS II - Indian Polity & Governance

Context:

IN A landmark ruling that has implications on the citizen’s right to hold property, a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court Tuesday ruled that not all private property can be deemed “material resource of the community” for redistribution under Article 39(b) of the Constitution.

Read about:

What is Article 39(b) of the Constitution?

Right to Property

Key takeaways:

• In its majority opinion, the Supreme Court stated that the term "material resource" in Article 39(b) of the Constitution may encompass certain privately owned resources, but not all such resources fall under this category.

• Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud authored the majority ruling, joined by Justices Hrishikesh Roy, J B Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, Satish Chandra Sharma, and Augustine George Masih. Justice B V Nagarathna offered a partial disagreement with the majority, while Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia provided a dissenting opinion.

• This ruling effectively revises a long-standing interpretation within Supreme Court jurisprudence. Historically, a series of judgments had extended Article 39(b) to both public and private resources, an interpretation that traces back to Justice V R Krishna Iyer’s minority opinion in State of Karnataka v Shri Ranganatha Reddy (1977).

• A subsequent 1982 ruling by a five-judge bench in Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, penned by Justice O Chinnappa Reddy, had upheld Justice Iyer’s interpretation.

• The current majority opinion, however, diverges from these earlier judgments, arguing that Justice Iyer broadened the definition too much by interpreting "material resources" as covering all resources meeting material needs, thus permitting government nationalization under Article 39(b).

• In his dissent, Justice Dhulia defended the broader and inclusive meaning previously assigned to "material resources of the community," arguing it remains both relevant and valuable.

• Article 39(b), part of the Directive Principles of State Policy in the Constitution, mandates that the state aim to distribute community resources in a manner that promotes the common good.

• Although the Directive Principles are intended to guide legislation, they are not legally enforceable in courts.

• The majority opinion asserted that Justice Iyer’s interpretation reflects a specific economic ideology. Including all private resources under Article 39(b), they argued, implies support for a particular economic structure. They noted that Iyer’s view in Sanjeev Coke was influenced by an economic school of thought that favored state acquisition of private property as beneficial for the nation

US Presidential elections and Process

For Preliminary Exa