send mail to support@abhimanu.com mentioning your email id and mobileno registered with us! if details not recieved
Resend Opt after 60 Sec.
By Loging in you agree to Terms of Services and Privacy Policy
Claim your free MCQ
Please specify
Sorry for the inconvenience but we’re performing some maintenance at the moment. Website can be slow during this phase..
Please verify your mobile number
Login not allowed, Please logout from existing browser
Please update your name
Subscribe to Notifications
Stay updated with the latest Current affairs and other important updates regarding video Lectures, Test Schedules, live sessions etc..
Your Free user account at abhipedia has been created.
Remember, success is a journey, not a destination. Stay motivated and keep moving forward!
Refer & Earn
Enquire Now
My Abhipedia Earning
Kindly Login to view your earning
Support
Context: The Supreme Court of India is hearing a case about whether the government can redistribute private property as “community resources” under the Constitution’s Article 39(b).
Majority Opinion: Private properties do not fall within the scope of “material resources of the community” under Article 39(b).
Minority Opinion by Justice Krishna Iyer: Stated that private properties should be considered community resources, aiming to facilitate redistribution in a socialist manner.
Court Ruling: Confirmed the government’s right to nationalize coal mines by treating them as community resources under Article 39(b), aligning with Justice Iyer’s interpretation.
Judicial View: Extended the application of Article 39(b) to include the transformation of private property into public ownership.
Opinion by Justice Paripoornan: Supported the broad interpretation of “material resources” in Article 39(b) to encompass both natural and man-made, as well as private and public properties.
Case Context: The Supreme Court is currently reviewing a challenge to the 1986 amendment to the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, focused on cessed properties in Mumbai.
Specific Dispute: Property owners are challenging the amendment’s provision that allows the state to acquire properties if 70% of the occupants request it, with the aim of redistributing them to “needy persons.”
Legal Argument: The property owners contend that this amendment violates their Right to Equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Previous Judicial Decision: The Bombay High Court had ruled that laws promoting the Directive Principles, like Article 39(b), could not be challenged on the basis of violating the right to equality, per Article 31C of the Constitution.
Supreme Court Involvement: The case reached the Supreme Court in December 1992. The central question became whether “material resources of the community” under Article 39(b) includes privately owned resources like cessed buildings.
The outcome of this hearing could redefine the scope of government power over private property in India, particularly in how wealth is distributed for public benefit. This decision will build on decades of legal interpretation and potentially affect property rights and social policies moving forward.
By: Shubham Tiwari ProfileResourcesReport error
Access to prime resources
New Courses