Today, On 5th November, The Supreme Court ruled that not all private properties qualify as community resources under Article 39(b) for State acquisition. Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud led the majority opinion, stating that properties must meet specific criteria. The court’s decision reflects differing judicial views on property rights and State authority, with three judgments delivered in total.
![BREAKING | [Day 5] 9-Judge Bench Reserves Verdict on Private Properties as Community Resources](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/MicrosoftTeams-image-34.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
Today (1st May): The Supreme Court’s nine-judge bench reserved its verdict on whether private properties can be considered community resources under Article 39(b) of the Constitution. The case involves a challenge against Chapter VIII-A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) Act, centered on the state’s power to acquire buildings for restoration. This ongoing case involves 16 petitions and has been a subject of deliberation since 1992.
!["National Wealth Redistribution Proposal is 'Juvenile'": SG | 9-Judge Bench | Nature of Private Property [Day 4]](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/image-106.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
During a Supreme Court session, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta criticized the National Wealth Redistribution Proposal as ‘juvenile,’ emphasizing the importance of private investments for economic development. The bench, led by Chief Justice Chandrachud, sought a balanced interpretation of Article 39(b) and discussed the need for legislative intervention to regulate material resources for distribution.