Latest
Wednesday, October 21, 2026
Supreme Court of India
Constitutional Law

Not Every Private Resource Is a 'Material Resource of the Community' Under Article 39(b): Nine-Judge Bench Majority

Published: · NyayVidhan

A nine-Judge Bench held by majority that not every privately owned resource is a 'material resource of the community' under Article 39(b), rejecting the wide view of Justice Krishna Iyer's minority opinion in Ranganatha Reddy that Sanjeev Coke followed (Chandrachud CJI, para 229). Whether a resource qualifies is a context-specific inquiry, and 'distribution' may include vesting in the State. All nine Judges held that Article 31C, as upheld in Kesavananda Bharati, survives. Nagarathna J. partly agreed; Dhulia J. dissented on Article 39(b).

Not Every Private Resource Is a 'Material Resource of the Community' Under Article 39(b): Nine-Judge Bench Majority

Judgment Intelligence

Reference Answered
Property Owners Association & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
2024 INSC 835
Civil Appeal No. 1012 of 2002 with SLP(C) Nos. 5777, 5204, 8797, 7950, 4367 and 6191-6192 of 1992, 6744 of 1993, 2303 and 13467 of 1995 and W.P.(C) Nos. 934 of 1992, 660 of 1998, 342 of 1999, 469 and 672 of 2000 and 66 of 2024
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
Final Outcome

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

  1. Article 31C, to the extent upheld in Kesavananda Bharati, remains in force (Chandrachud CJI, para 229).
  2. Not every privately owned resource is a 'material resource of the community' (Chandrachud CJI, para 229).
  3. Sanjeev Coke erred by relying on the minority opinion in Ranganatha Reddy (Chandrachud CJI, para 229).
  4. The Mafatlal observation on private resources is not ratio and does not bind (Chandrachud CJI, para 229).
  5. '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

Chapter VIII-A, added to the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 in 1986, allows old cessed buildings in Mumbai to be acquired and transferred to co-operative societies of occupiers on payment of a hundred times the monthly rent, and Section 1A declares that the Act gives effect to Article 39(b) (Chandrachud CJI, paras 10, 12). The Bombay High Court upheld Chapter VIII-A as saved by Article 31C (Chandrachud CJI, para 14). On appeal, Benches of three (1996), five (2001) and seven (2002) Judges referred questions on Article 31C and Article 39(b), the last to nine Judges (Chandrachud CJI, paras 16-25). The validity of the Act was left to a regular Bench (Chandrachud CJI, para 32).

Court's Findings

As Section 4 of the Forty-Second Amendment was a substitution, its invalidation in Minerva Mills left the unamended Article 31C, as far as upheld in Kesavananda Bharati, in force (Chandrachud CJI, paras 69, 71). Sanjeev Coke erred in relying on Krishna Iyer J.'s minority opinion in Ranganatha Reddy, which the four-Judge majority expressly declined to endorse (Chandrachud CJI, paras 104-105). Mafatlal's one-line observation was obiter dicta (Chandrachud CJI, para 127). The words 'material' and 'of the community' cannot be made otiose: privately owned resources are not excluded as a class, but not all are covered (Chandrachud CJI, paras 211-212). Covering all private property would endorse one economic ideology and clash with the constitutional protection of property (Chandrachud CJI, paras 213, 220). Relevant factors include the resource's nature, scarcity, community impact and private concentration; the Public Trust Doctrine may assist (Chandrachud CJI, paras 222, 224). Nagarathna J. held that a private resource must first enter the community's pool, as by acquisition or nationalisation, and called the criticism of Krishna Iyer J. unwarranted (Nagarathna J., paras 5.9, 9.1-9.2). Dhulia J. held the wide meaning in Ranganatha Reddy and Sanjeev Coke correct, leaving its application to the legislature (Dhulia J., paras 48-49).

Legal Principle

Article 39(b) can reach privately owned resources, but only those that are 'material' and 'of the community', judged case by case on factors such as their nature, scarcity, impact on the community and concentration in private hands; 'distribution' may include vesting or nationalisation, and the unamended Article 31C remains in force (Chandrachud CJI, paras 222, 229).

Precedents Relied Upon

  1. State of Karnataka v. Ranganatha Reddy (1977) 4 SCC 471
    Explained Discussed at ¶ 21-22, 104-105

    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.

  2. Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Co vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (1983) 1 SCC 147
    Explained Discussed at ¶ 18, 94, 105

    Erred in relying on the minority opinion in Ranganatha Reddy to hold that all private resources are covered.

  3. Mafatlal Industries Ltd vs. Union of India 1997 (5) SCC 536
    Explained Discussed at ¶ 24, 121, 127

    Its single-line observation that the phrase includes privately owned resources was obiter dicta.

View all precedents (6)
  1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 17, 71

    Upheld the first part of the unamended Article 31C, which continues in force.

  2. Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) 3 SCC 625
    Explained Discussed at ¶ 16-17, 69

    Striking down Section 4 of the Forty-Second Amendment left the unamended Article 31C in force.

  3. Natural Resources Allocation, In re, Special Reference No. 1 of 2012 (2012) 10 SCC 1
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 197, 225

    The Public Trust Doctrine extends to resources such as spectrum, which cannot be dissipated for private exploitation.

NyayVidhan
Court Judgments · 3 min read
Decided: November 5, 2024 Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Just...
PDF
 Join our WhatsApp Group
✕

Try: POCSO, IBC, Electoral Bond, Article 370, NDPS Act, Bail Conditions, SC Contempt