SC refrains from ‘Marxist Interpretation of Article 39(b)’ in wealth redistribution debate

The ongoing political discourse surrounding the redistribution of wealth witnessed a major development as the Supreme Court made a statement on Wednesday regarding the interpretation of Article 39(b) of the Constitution. 

The apex court announced that it would not strictly adhere to Justice V R Krishna Iyer's 1977 Marxist interpretation of Article 39(b), which posited that a community's "material resources" could encompass private properties for redistribution in the interest of the common good.

In a session focused on delineating the scope of Article 39(b) of the Directive Principles of State Policy in the Constitution, a nine-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India 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 delved into the nuances of community resources versus privately owned properties.

Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud remarked, "We don't have to go as far as the Marxist socialist interpretation by Justice Krishna Iyer [of Article 39(b) in the Ranganatha Reddy case of 1977]. But community resources will surely include resources which the present generation holds in trust based on inter-generational equity."

The bench elucidated on the contrasting views regarding wealth distribution, mentioning the Marxist socialist perspective of state and community ownership, the capitalist emphasis on individual rights, and the Gandhian concept of resource stewardship for inter-generational equity.

Highlighting the distinction between community resources and private property, the CJI indicated that natural resources, including forests, lakes, and mines, even if privately held, would be considered community resources. However, he emphasized that individual rights should not be undermined in the pursuit of common good benefits derived from these resources.

CJI Chandrachud clarified, "We cannot say Article 39(b) has no application to privately held properties like water, forests, and mines. But it should not be taken to the level of taking someone's personal property for distribution."

Senior advocate Uttara Babar underscored that Article 39(b) primarily focuses on the distribution of community resources for the greater common good, distinct from mechanisms for resource acquisition, which fall under separate legislative and executive measures.

The bench concurred that Article 39(b) does not facilitate the acquisition of community resources but rather aligns with the constitutional goals set by the framers.