The Supreme Court on Tuesday held that not all private property can be considered as “material resources of the community” which the government has to redistribute equitably, Live Law reported.

The majority judgement, authored by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, said that the phrase “material resources” in Article 39(b) of the Constitution may include privately-owned resources, but not all private property would fall under its ambit.

Article 39(b), which is part of the Directive Principles of State Policy, requires the government to ensure that the “ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good”.

The majority opinion on Tuesday was authored by Chandrachud. Justice BV Nagarathna partially concurred with it while Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia dissented from the majority.

In 1977, Justice Krishna Iyer of the Supreme Court had held in a minority opinion that all resources that fulfil material needs are covered by the phrase “material resources of the community”, and so, the government could nationalise these resources. In two subsequent cases in 1982 and 1997, Constitution benches of the Supreme Court relied on the dissenting opinion, because of which the matter had to be referred to a nine-judge bench.

On Tuesday, the majority verdict held that Iyer’s opinion could not be accepted. The bench said that Iyer’s views represented a “particular ideology” and that since then, the country has moved on from socialism to liberalisation and market-based reforms, The Hindu reported.

“India’s economic trajectory indicates that the Constitution, the custodians of the Constitution – the electorate have routinely rejected the idea of one economic dogma being the exclusive repository of truth,” the court said. The bench added that over the years, citizens have voted to power governments with varying socio-economic policies based on the country’s evolving challenges.

The Supreme Court’s verdict stems from a 1992 petition by the Mumbai-based Property Owners’ Association challenging a section of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) Act. The section allowed state governments to acquire buildings and land if 70% of the occupants requested it for restoration.