In a recent and significant judgment, a nine-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court of India deliberated on the interpretation of Article 39(b) of the Constitution, which pertains to the equitable redistribution of material resources of the community. The majority judgment, authored by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, held that not all private properties can be considered as part of the ‘material resources of the community’ that the State is obliged to redistribute. However, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia’s dissenting opinion offers a compelling counter-narrative that underscores the enduring relevance of the views expressed by Justices Krishna Iyer and Chinnappa Reddy.

The Majority View

The majority judgment, supported by seven judges, including Justices Hrishikesh Roy, B.V. Nagarathna, J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, Satish Chandra Sharma, and Augustine George Masih, posited that only certain private properties meeting specific qualifiers could be considered as ‘material resources of the community.’ This interpretation was at odds with the views of Justices Krishna Iyer and Chinnappa Reddy, who had previously argued that private properties could indeed be regarded as community resources.

Justice Dhulia’s Dissent

Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia’s 97-page dissent is a meticulous exploration of the historical roots and constitutional intent behind Article 39(b). Here are some key points from his dissenting opinion:

Historical Context and Constituent Assembly Debates

Justice Dhulia delved into the Constituent Assembly debates to understand the framers’ intent. He noted that K.T. Shah’s proposal to specify what constitutes ‘material resources of the community’ was rejected by the Assembly. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the Chairman of the Drafting Committee, advocated for keeping such expressions in general terms to ensure they remained broad and adaptable over time.

Inclusion of Private Property

Justice Dhulia argued that the term ‘material resources of the community’ must include privately owned resources. He contended that excluding private property would render the provision meaningless and contradict the socialist and democratic principles enshrined in the Constitution. The aim of Articles 38 and 39 is to ensure that economic policies do not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production in a few hands.

Reading Articles 39(b) and (c) in Light of Article 38

Justice Dhulia emphasized the need to interpret clauses (b) and (c) of Article 39 in conjunction with Article 38. This holistic approach highlights that material resources, both public and private, must serve the common good and prevent wealth concentration.

Relevance of Past Judgments

He defended the judgments in State of Karnataka v. Ranganatha Reddy (1978) and Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (1983), which had endorsed the view that private properties can be considered community resources. Justice Dhulia argued that these interpretations were contextually relevant and aligned with the constitutional philosophy of ensuring social and economic equality.

Critique of Majority View

Justice Dhulia criticized the majority’s approach of providing a non-exhaustive list of factors to determine which resources qualify as ‘material resources of the community.’ He believed this pre-emptive determination was unnecessary and could limit the scope of the provision.

Wealth Inequality and Constitutional Principles

Justice Dhulia’s dissent is particularly poignant in the context of India’s ongoing struggle with wealth inequality. Despite political and legal equality, social and economic disparities persist, a concern that Dr. Ambedkar had highlighted during the Constituent Assembly debates. The judgment underscores that the principles behind Articles 38 and 39 remain crucial in addressing these inequalities.

Protection Under Article 31-C

Justice Dhulia also clarified that the protection afforded by Article 31-C is relevant only when private property is being acquired to serve the common good, potentially violating Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. He emphasized that this protection is essential for laws made in pursuance of Article 39(b) and (c).

Conclusion

In conclusion, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia’s dissenting opinion in this landmark case serves as a powerful reminder of the enduring relevance of the views expressed by Justices Krishna Iyer and Chinnappa Reddy. It highlights the importance of interpreting constitutional provisions in a manner that aligns with their original intent and the broader social and economic context.

The debate surrounding Article 39(b) is not merely academic but has profound implications for how India addresses wealth inequality and ensures that its economic policies serve the common good. As Justice Dhulia aptly put it, “The Krishna Iyer Doctrine, or for that matter the O. Chinnappa Reddy