Judgment Intelligence
Reference Answered- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date of Decision
- 5 November 2024
- Bench
- Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice Manoj Misra, Justice Rajesh Bindal, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Augustine George Masih
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India - Articles 31C, 39(b) and 300A; Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 - Section 4; Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 - Section 1A and Chapter VIII-A
Reference answered in the above terms; the Registry was directed to obtain administrative instructions from the Chief Justice for placing the matters before an appropriate Bench (Chandrachud CJI, para 230). Nagarathna J. answered it in her own terms (Nagarathna J., para 25).
Source Supreme Court of India, www.sci.gov.in — judgment dated 05.11.2024
Key holdings
- Article 31C, to the extent upheld in Kesavananda Bharati, remains in force (Chandrachud CJI, para 229).
- Not every privately owned resource is a 'material resource of the community' (Chandrachud CJI, para 229).
- Sanjeev Coke erred by relying on the minority opinion in Ranganatha Reddy (Chandrachud CJI, para 229).
- The Mafatlal observation on private resources is not ratio and does not bind (Chandrachud CJI, para 229).
- 'Distribution' can include vesting in the State or nationalisation (Chandrachud CJI, para 229).
Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.
Brief Facts
Court's Findings
Legal Principle
Precedents Relied Upon
- State of Karnataka v. Ranganatha Reddy (1977) 4 SCC 471
The majority expressly declined to agree with Krishna Iyer J.'s view of Article 39(b), so that minority view did not bind later Benches.
- Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Co vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (1983) 1 SCC 147
Erred in relying on the minority opinion in Ranganatha Reddy to hold that all private resources are covered.
- Mafatlal Industries Ltd vs. Union of India 1997 (5) SCC 536
Its single-line observation that the phrase includes privately owned resources was obiter dicta.
View all precedents (6)
- Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225
Upheld the first part of the unamended Article 31C, which continues in force.
- Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) 3 SCC 625
Striking down Section 4 of the Forty-Second Amendment left the unamended Article 31C in force.
- Natural Resources Allocation, In re, Special Reference No. 1 of 2012 (2012) 10 SCC 1
The Public Trust Doctrine extends to resources such as spectrum, which cannot be dissipated for private exploitation.