Chambers of Ishaan Garg
Ch. No. 217, Western Wing, District & Sessions Court, Tis Hazari, New Delhi, Delhi 110054
+91 8851742417, +91 8800386163
Provision—Article 39(b) reads as follows:
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 subserve the common good.
Issues: Total 2
1. Article 31C:
Whether Article 31C (as upheld in Kesavananda Bharati) survives in the Constitution after the amendment to the provision by the
forty-second amendment was struck down by this Court in Minerva mills;
2. Article 39(b):
Whether the interpretation of Article 39(b) adopted by Justice Krishna Iyer in State of Karnataka v. Ranganatha Reddy (1978) and followed in Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.(1983) by Justice O Chinnappa Reddy must be reconsidered.
Whether the phrase ‘material resources of the community’ in
Article 39(b) can be interpreted to include resources that are owned
privately and not by the state.
In this brief we are dealing the second issue—
3 Judgments CJI & others, BV nagarathna and Sudhanshu dhulia, see end for ratio 8:1/7:2.
Ratio Decidendi- let's start
1. All private owned resources satisfies only the term 'resources' not material or community.
2. If private Owned resources has to be excluded then instead of 'community' word 'State' would be there.
3. Meaning of Community-
Different from Individual, if 39(b) meant individual then community word would be absent.
4. Private Owned resources included in it hut not all only those whoch are Material and of the community.
5. As per Rangnath reddy means + good produce both included, i.e., Factory and private owned cars produced from factory.
6. Sanjeev coke- Phrase included, all things capable of producing wealth of the community,
7. Overruled- Both the views favours all private included which is held erroneous by majority and says that it favours particular economic ideology (communism ki baat ho rahi hai :) but constitution does not permits any particular ideology it is framed in broad terms.
8. Interpretation Against Article 300A- To hold that all private property is covered by the phrase “material resources of the community” and that the ultimate aim is state control of private resources would be incompatible with the constitutional protection.
9. Test to determine whether the resource comes under 39(b) or not—
✓ Nature of the resource,
✓ Characteristics of the resource,
✓ Impact of the resource on the well-being of the community,
✓ Scarcity of the resource,
✓ Consequence of such a resource being concentrated in the hands of private players.
The public trust doctrine can also be applied ( see M.C. Mehta vs Kamal Nath & Ors on 13 December, 1996)
10. Gave non- exhaustive illustrations like Ponds, lakes, wetlands, fragile lands, resource bearing lands.
also, Natural gas, mines minerals, air waves, spectrum (scarcr and finite) may be privately owned and controlled.
Dissent—
1. B.V. Nagarathana-
She concurred with regard to not all private resource come under it however she penned different views on how private resource can be transformed to community and subsequently distributed to subserve common good.
Also she dissented on-
In my view, the judgments Ranganatha Reddy, Sanjeev Coke, Abu Kavur Bai and Basantibai correctly decided the issues that fell for consideration and do not call for any
interference on the merits of the matters and as explained above.
Reasoning why sanjeev coke is good law as regard on merits of the case decided- In Sanjeev Coke this Court did not decide the case only on the basis of the opinion of Krishna Iyer, J. in Ranganatha Reddy.
2. Sudhanshu Dhulia-
Dissented from majority on meaning of the phrase “material resources of the community and favoured the 2 overruled judgments.
Note: Sudhanshu, J, is the only dissenting judge if question comes on whether ALL private owned comes under phrase of 39(b) & B.V., J, on merits of 2 past cases and dofferent reasoning of when private resouce is community.
