Read Time: 12 minutes

Synopsis

Supreme Court judge Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia on November 5, 2024 dissented with the majority view in the nine-judge bench ruling that not all privately owned resources are “material resources of the community".

"The inequality in income and wealth and the growing gap between the rich and the poor is still enormous. It will therefore not be prudent to abandon the principles on which Articles 38 and 39 are based and on which stands the Three Judge opinion in Ranganatha Reddy and the unanimous verdict in Sanjeev Coke," he wrote.

In his separate dissenting judgment, he opined that the incorporation of Article 38 as well as Article 39(b) and (c) in Part IV of the Constitution was based on the prevalent philosophy of the time and the path of development India chose to follow. 

"The interpretation given to the provisions by this court, particularly in Ranganatha Reddy and Sanjeev Coke also has its contextual relevance. Perhaps in some ways situations have changed. What has not changed, however, is the inequality. There is today a political equality and there is also an equality in law, yet the social and economic inequalities continue as cautioned by Dr Ambedkar in his speech in the constituent Assembly on November 25, 1949," Justice Dhulia said.

He said the broad and inclusive meaning given to the expression “material resources of the community” by Justice Krishna Iyer and Justice O Chinnappa Reddy in Ranganatha Reddy and Sanjeev Coke respectively has stood us in good stead and has lost none of its relevance, or jurisprudential value, nor has it lost the audience which appreciates these values.

Justice Dhulia referred to the existing philosophy of the day, the purpose of Directive Principles and the speech of Dr Ambedkar on inequality in the country when the Constitution was being framed.

"Has our world changed? Has the inequality in the country decreased? There are no definite or easy answers to these questions. Although in absolute terms poverty may have decreased, as some reports indicate. Possibly, the lowest strata of our society in economic terms may be better off than what it was say 50 years earlier. But this would not mean that the inequality in our society too has decreased, or the gap between the rich and the poor has narrowed down. There are conflicting reports on inequality and poverty," he said.

He felt the economic conditions as they exist today require the efforts of the State with its welfare measures, inter alia under Article 39(b) & (c) of the Constitution, as interpreted in Ranganatha Reddy and Sanjeev Coke.

"Ultimately, we the people of India have resolved “to secure to all its citizens”- justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. The Constitution of India secures these values for all its citizens and speaks in an expansive language, particularly for the provisions contained in Part III and Part IV. This is how the Constitution has been interpreted by this Court all along. It is due to the expansive meaning given by the Supreme Court to Articles 14 and 21 that we have today an entire body of case laws, which protects the life and liberty of its people," he said.

The majority judgment authored by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud noted that the direct question referred to the top court was whether the phrase ‘material resources of the community’ used in Article 39(b) of the Constitution included privately owned resources. 

"Theoretically, the answer is yes, the phrase may include privately owned resources. However, this court is unable to subscribe to the expansive view adopted in the minority judgement authored by Justice Krishna Iyer in State of Karnataka Vs Ranganatha Reddy (1977) and subsequently relied on by this court in Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Co Vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd (1983)," the majority judgment said.

However, in his dissenting verdict, Justice Dhulia said Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution have been given an expansive meaning by the Supreme Court, which was never perceived by the framers of the Constitution. But this is precisely the task of the Constitutional Courts.     

"The words in Articles 14 and 21 apparently do not give the meaning which has come to be given to these two Articles now, through a catena of decisions of this Court. They cover the whole range of Rights as this is how they have evolved and expanded by this Court and the High Courts. A Constitutional provision acquires its meaning only after it is interpreted by a Constitutional Court," he said.

"The provisions in Article 39(b) & (c) too have to be read in the light of Article 38 of the Constitution of India. Once we do that, we cannot but give an expansive meaning to the phrase “material resources of the community”," he added.

In his judgment, Justice Dhulia also dealt with a question as to what is a binding precedent and more precisely what would be the value of a minority judgment. 

"Theoretically speaking there are no judgments of the Supreme Court which may throw any light on what would be the binding nature of a judgment of minority judges given on a subject, where the majority has remained silent. The logic, however, is very clear, in cases where a Judge or Judges of the Supreme Court in minority have given a decision on a point on which the majority has remained silent, that it would be binding on the High Courts and all other Courts, and for this Court the least it will have is persuasive value," he said.

Justice Dhulia said that he was unable to accept the CJI's view, which declared that not all privately owned resources are “material resources of the community”.