SC’s balancing act

IN a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court on Tuesday decisively clarified that not all private property can be classified as “material resources of the community” for redistribution by the state under Article 39(b) of the Constitution. The verdict, delivered by a nine-judge Bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, draws a firm line between private ownership and public resources. It emphasised a nuanced, context-specific approach. At the heart of the ruling is the recognition that not all privately held resources necessarily serve the “common good” when redistributed. The SC outlined specific criteria for determining whether a private asset falls within the community’s material resources: its inherent characteristics, scarcity and impact on societal welfare. This protects individual ownership while ensuring that essential resources, such as natural reserves or spectrum, can be made available for the public benefit when necessary.

Significantly, the decision departs from the broad socialist interpretations of the 1970s, which cast a wide net over private assets as public resources. The majority opinion challenges earlier expansive views by underscoring India’s evolution towards a market-oriented economy. It asserts that endorsing a singular economic ideology contradicts the flexible, democratic principles embedded in the Constitution.

This verdict marks a prudent shift in balancing economic policy with constitutional rights. By ruling that the judiciary’s role is to respect the “intent of the framers to lay down the foundation for an economic democracy”, the SC reaffirms the importance of elected representatives in shaping economic choices. This restraint is crucial as India’s economic landscape expands to include new industries and complex assets. It underlines the court’s commitment to safeguarding individual property rights while prioritising common good judiciously.