2024 Supreme(SC) 990

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI, HRISHIKESH ROY, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA, RAJESH BINDAL, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, B.V. NAGARATHNA, SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JJ.
Property Owners Association & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1012 of 2002 With SLP(C) No. 5777 of 1992 With SLP(C) No. 5204 of 1992 With SLP(C) No. 8797 of 1992 With SLP(C) No. 7950 of 1992 With SLP(C) No. 4367 of 1992 With W.P.(C) No. 934 of 1992 With SLP(C) Nos. 6191-6192 of 1992 With SLP(C) No. 6744 of 1993 With SLP(C) No. 2303 of 1995 With SLP(C) No. 13467 of 1995 With W.P.(C) No. 660 of 1998 With W.P.(C) No. 342 of 1999 With W.P.(C) No. 469 of 2000 With W.P.(C) No. 672 of 2000 And With W.P.(C) No. 66 of 2024
Decided on : 05-11-2024

IMPORTANT POINTS
[Majority View]
(1) Acquisition of private resources – Not every resource owned by an individual can be considered a ‘material resource of community’ merely because it meets qualifier of ‘material needs’ – Court must not tread into domain of economic policy or endorse a particular economic ideology while undertaking constitutional interpretation.
(2) Materiality of a privately owned resource and whether it has community element cannot be determined in a vacuum and must be identified on a case-by-case basis.
(3) Binding Precedent – Judges of Supreme Court have liberty to pronounce separate dissenting judgment(s) – However, it is decision of majority of Judges which constitutes binding judgment – Binding nature of Judgment depends on Bench strength and not numerical strength of majority taking a particular view.

Headnote:

Per DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI (With HRISHIKESH ROY, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA, RAJESH BINDAL, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ. Concurring. (Majority View)

(A) Constitution of India – Articles 39(b) and 31-C – Acquisition of private resources – Article 39(b) is not a source of legislative power – Inclusion or exclusion of ‘privately-owned resources’ from ambit of provision does not impact power of legislature to enact laws to acquire such resources – Power to acquire private resources, in certain situations, continues to be traceable to other provisions in Constitution, including sovereign power of eminent domain – Even if a law is in furtherance of Article 39(b) and protected by Article 31C, it is susceptible to challenge to its constitutionality under other provisions of Constitution, including Article 300-A – Similarly, a law which falls outside ambit of Article 39(b), may still be valid – All other benefits and protections granted by Constitution under Articles 31A and 31B continue to be applicable to such a law – Interpretation of Article 39(b), both as a pre-cursor to protection of Article 31C and as an aspirational Directive Principle, cannot run counter to constitutional recognition of private property – To hold that all private property is covered by phrase “material resources of community” and that ultimate aim is state control of private resources would be incompatible with constitutional protection. (Paras 203 and 220)

(B) Constitution of India – Articles 39(b) and 31-C – Acquisition of private resources – Materiality of a privately owned resource and whether it has community element cannot be determined in a vacuum and must be identified on a case-by-case basis – There are various forms of resources which may be privately owned and inherently have bearing on ecology and/or well-being of community – Such resources fall within net of Article 39(b) – Article 39(b) only lays down restriction on object of distribution, that it must be to subserve ‘common good’ – However, there is no bar on mode of distribution – Term ‘distribution’ has a wide connotation – Distribution may be piecemeal or resource may be kept in control of a governmental agency or a regulated private agency, so long as benefits percolate through to people as a common good – Supreme Court must not tread into domain of economic policy, or endorse a particular economic ideology while undertaking constitutional interpretation – Enquiry about whether resource in question falls within ambit of Article 39(b) must be context-specific and subject to a non-exhaustive list of factors such as nature of resource and its characteristics; impact of resource on well-being of community; scarcity of resource; and consequences of such a resource being concentrated in hands of private players – Public Trust Doctrine evolved by Supreme Court may also help identify resources which fall within ambit of phrase “material resource of community. (Paras 222, 223, 227, 228 and 229)

(C) Interpretation of Statute – No word in a Statute may be construed as surplusage and be rendered ineffective – While construing a provision, full effect is to be given to language used in provision. (Para 210)

(D) Judicial Discipline – Binding Precedent – Law laid down by Supreme Court is binding on subsequent Benches of lesser or coequal strength – A Bench of lesser strength cannot disagree or dissent from view taken by a Bench of a larger quorum – Judges of Supreme Court have liberty to pronounce separate dissenting judgment(s) – However, it is decision of majority of Judges which constitutes binding judgment – Binding nature of Judgment depends on Bench strength and not numerical strength of majority taking a particular view – Majority Judgment is not always contained in a single opinion – It is common practice for a plurality of Judges of Supreme Court to render separate opinions and it is from conclusions and concurring observations of each of their Judgments that a majority opinion is identified. (Paras 96, 97 and 98)

Facts of the case:

Reference to this Constitution Bench raises significant questions about Articles 39(b) and 31-C of Constitution. At its core, present dispute concerns whether the text of Article 31-C as it stood prior to Forty-Second Amendment can continue to be given legal effect after Court in Minerva Mills invalidated Section 4 of the Forty-Second Amendment.

Findings of Court:

On the limited question of whether acquisition of private resources falls within ambit of term ‘distribution’, we agree with principles enunciated in previous decisions of this Court. The term has a wide connotation. Distribution may be piecemeal or resource may be kept in control of a governmental agency or a regulated private agency, so long as benefits percolate through to people as a common good.

Result : Reference answered.