Article 39(b) of Constitution of India: Why Supreme Court nine-judge bench needs to interpret Article 39(b)
Article 39(b) of Constitution of India
Constitution of India, 1949
39. Certain principles of policy to be followed by the State:-
The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing-
(a) that the citizens, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means to livelihood;
(b) that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good;
(c) that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment;
(d) that there is equal pay for equal work for both men and women;
(e) that the health and strength of workers, men and women, and the tender age of children are not abused and that citizens are not forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their age or strength;
(f) that children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment.
Constitution Article
Article 39 in Constitution of India
39. Certain principles of policy to be followed by the State
The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing–(a)that the citizens, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means to livelihood;(b)that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to sub serve the common good;(c)that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment;(d)that there is equal pay for equal work for both men and women;(e)that the health and strength of workers, men and women, and the tender age of children are not abused and that citizens are not forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their age or strength;[In article 39 of the Constitution, for clause (f), the following clause shall be substituted through Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976](f)that children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment.[Editorial comment-The Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976, New DPSPs (Directive Principles of State Policy) had been added to the existing list, where it secure opportunities for the healthy development of children. Important Verdict-Minerva Mills Ltd. And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. Also Refer]
Why Supreme Court nine-judge bench needs to interpret Article 39(b)
Certain Principles of Policy to be Followed by the State
The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing—
(a) that the citizens, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood;
(b) that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good;
(c) that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment;
(d) that there is equal pay for equal work for both men and women;
(e) that the health and strength of workers, men and women, and the tender age of children are not abused and that citizens are not forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their age or strength;
(f) that children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment.
Why Supreme Court nine-judge bench needs to interpret Article 39(b)
A nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday commenced the process for interpretation of Article 39(b) of the Constitution to determine whether this directive principle of state policy provision allows govt to treat and redistribute privately owned properties under the garb of “material resources of the community” for greater common good.
A nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday commenced the process for interpretation of Article 39(b) of the Constitution to determine whether this directive principle of state policy provision allows govt to treat and redistribute privately owned properties under the garb of “material resources of the community” for greater common good.
The interpretation by a bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices Hrishikesh Roy, B V Nagarathna, S Dhulia, J B Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, R Bindal, S C Sharma and A G Masih stems from Justice V R Krishna Iyer’s dissenting view in Ranganatha Reddy case of 1977 that community resources included private properties and the conflation of the two in later judgments, leading to the matter being referred on Feb 20, 2002, for interpretation by a nine-judge bench.
There’s a big debate happening in India about the interpretation of Article 39(b) of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court’s nine-judge bench is starting the process of interpreting Article 39(b) to figure out if the government can treat and redistribute privately owned properties as “material resources of the community” for the greater good.
This interpretation stems from Justice V R Krishna Iyer’s dissenting view in a 1977 case, where he said that community resources should include private properties. This view has been mixed up with other ideas in later judgments, which has led to the matter being referred to the nine-judge bench for clarification.
The outcome of this interpretation could have major implications for property rights and government powers in India. It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court decides on this matter.
Article 39B deals with the promotion of equal justice and free legal aid. An interpretation by a nine-judge bench is usually sought for complex constitutional issues.
The interpretation of Article 39(b) by a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India is significant due to its relevance in shaping policy and jurisprudence related to social and economic justice. Article 39(b) is part of the Directive Principles of State Policy in the Indian Constitution, which provides guidelines for the government on social and economic matters. Specifically, Article 39(b) states that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community should be so distributed as to best serve the common good.
Interpreting Article 39(b) involves determining the scope and implications of the principle of distributing material resources for the common good. This interpretation can have far-reaching effects on various policies and laws related to land acquisition, natural resource management, economic development, and social welfare programs.
Given the importance of Article 39(b) in shaping socio-economic policies and the potential for differing interpretations, a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court is convened to ensure a comprehensive and authoritative interpretation that can guide future legal and policy decisions. This process typically involves considering previous judgments, constitutional principles, international conventions, and socio-economic realities to arrive at a balanced and nuanced understanding of Article 39(b) and its implications for governance and development in India.
The Supreme Court’s nine-judge bench needs to interpret Article 39(b) because there have been conflicting views on its interpretation in previous judgments, particularly regarding the scope of the term “material resources of the community.”
In a 1977 case, Justice V R Krishna Iyer took the view that this term should include private properties, which has led to some confusion and debate. The interpretation of Article 39(b) could have major implications for property rights and government powers in India, as it could determine whether the government can redistribute privately owned properties for the greater common good.
The nine-judge bench has been tasked with clarifying the interpretation of Article 39(b) to resolve these conflicts and provide guidance for future cases. This is a significant matter that could shape the balance between individual rights and the state’s powers in India, which is why it’s important for the Supreme Court to provide a clear interpretation.
The Supreme Court’s nine-judge bench needs to interpret Article 39(b) because it is a crucial provision in the Constitution that guides the State’s policies towards economic justice and equitable distribution of resources. The interpretation of this provision could have significant implications for various economic policies, including those related to public sector enterprises, natural resources, and taxation.
The Supreme Court’s interpretation could clarify the scope and extent of the State’s obligation to distribute material resources in a manner that best serves the common good. This could have a bearing on several ongoing cases involving economic and social rights, such as the right to food, the right to education, and the right to health.
Moreover, the interpretation of Article 39(b) could also impact the balance between the State’s regulatory powers and individual property rights. A broader interpretation of the provision could empower the State to take stronger measures to redistribute wealth and resources, while a narrower interpretation could limit the State’s ability to intervene in economic matters.
Overall, the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Article 39(b) is likely to have far-reaching consequences for economic policy, social justice, and individual rights in India.
Advocates & Lawyers - Advocate in Jabalpur 