All or any: On resources and Supreme Court verdict

A recent nine-judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India has examined the scope of the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP), particularly Articles 39(b) and (c), which aim to prevent the concentration of wealth and ensure that material resources are distributed for the common good. The Court’s verdict specifically addresses the question of whether the state can acquire and control private property in the public interest, and to what extent the state’s duty under these Articles can override individual fundamental rights.

Court’s Majority Opinion and Interpretation of Article 39

• Article 39(b) and (c) – Economic Philosophy of the Constitution: Articles 39(b) and (c) mandate that the material resources of the community must be so distributed to serve the common good and prevent wealth concentration. The majority of the Supreme Court rejected an expansive view of the state’s power over private resources, asserting that only specific types of private property—based on non-exhaustive factors like scarcity, concentration, and necessity—can be subject to state acquisition for the public good.
• Factors for State Action: The state’s power to acquire private property for distribution to the community should consider factors such as the nature of the resources, their scarcity, and the potential consequences of their concentration in private hands.
• Non-Ideological Interpretation of Economic Goals: The Court’s majority also held that the DPSP must be interpreted flexibly and not tied to any specific ideological or economic framework. The framers of the Constitution had deliberately framed Article 39 in broad terms to allow future governments to address emerging economic realities without being bound by particular economic doctrines.

Dissenting Opinion and Its Significance

• Dissent: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia dissented from the majority view, arguing that the scope of the material resources under Article 39 should not be limited by factors such as scarcity or concentration. Given the persistent inequality in Indian society, leaving the determination of what constitutes "material resources" to the wisdom of the legislature would have been a better approach, ensuring that the state has greater flexibility in addressing social disparities.
• Question of Legislative Discretion: The legislature should have the discretion to decide which resources are essential for the common good, as this could be more in tune with contemporary socio-economic realities.
• Impact on Future Legal and Economic Frameworks: The dissent holds significance as it challenges the majority’s restrictive interpretation of the Directive Principles, raising concerns about the potential for continuing economic inequality in society.

Practice Question

Q. The recent Supreme Court verdict on the interpretation of Articles 39(b) and (c) of the Constitution emphasizes limiting the state’s power over private property. Critically analyze the majority and dissenting opinions, and discuss their implications for the future of economic policy and social justice in India.