{"id":341675,"date":"2025-02-17T15:00:02","date_gmt":"2025-02-17T09:30:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=341675"},"modified":"2025-03-07T12:02:09","modified_gmt":"2025-03-07T06:32:09","slug":"tussle-between-property-rights-and-common-good-supreme-court-clarifies","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/02\/17\/tussle-between-property-rights-and-common-good-supreme-court-clarifies\/","title":{"rendered":"Tussle between Property Rights and Common Good: Supreme Court Clarifies"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Introduction<\/h2>\n

In Property Owners\u2019 Assn.<\/span> v. State of Maharashtra<\/span>1<\/sup><\/a>, a 9-Judge Constitution Bench, has held by a majority of 8:1, that all private property does not constitute \u201cmaterial resources of the community\u201d under Article 39(b)<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>.2<\/sup><\/a> It was further held that only some privately owned resources may come under Article 39(b<\/span>) provided they meet the qualifiers of being a \u201cmaterial resource\u201d and \u201cof the community\u201d. The Bench unanimously held that Article 31-C<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>,3<\/sup><\/a> to the extent that it was upheld in Kesavananda Bharati<\/span> v. State of Kerala<\/span>4<\/sup><\/a> (Kesavananda Bharati<\/span>) remains in force. The Bench also held that the single sentence observation in Mafatlal Industries Ltd.<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span>5<\/sup><\/a> (Mafatlal<\/span>) to the effect that \u201cmaterial resources of the community\u201d include privately owned resources is part of the obiter dicta of that judgment and would not be binding.<\/p>\n

The majority of 7 Judges, speaking through Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dr D.Y. Chandrachud (as he then was) disagreed with the observation in Sanjeev Coke Mfg. Co.<\/span> v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.<\/span>6<\/sup><\/a> (Sanjeev Coke<\/span>) and view taken by the minority in State of Karnataka<\/span> v. Ranganatha Reddy<\/span>7<\/sup><\/a> (Ranganatha Reddy<\/span>) that \u201cmaterial resources of the community\u201d means and includes all resources, natural, man-made, public and privately owned, inter alia for the reason that the said interpretation is incompatible with Article 300-A.<\/p>\n

Justice B.V. Nagarathna, in her separate concurring opinion, held that all private resources except personal effects of an individual can be \u201cmaterial resources of the community\u201d provided that they are transformed into a material resource by State action such as acquisition or vesting. She further held that mere vesting of a privately owned resource would not amount to \u201cdistribution\u201d for the purposes of Article 39(b<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia disagreed with the majority’s view on Article 39(b<\/span>). He held that all private resources can come under the ambit of \u201cmaterial resources of the community\u201d and holding otherwise would upset the meaning given to the phrase by several judgments both before and after Ranganatha Reddy case<\/span>.8<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

History of the reference<\/h2>\n

The impugned legislation<\/p>\n

Chapter VIII of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976<\/a> (Mhada<\/span> Act) provides for the repairs and reconstruction of dilapidated buildings in Greater Bombay. Under Section 84 buildings are divided into 3 categories:<\/p>\n

(i<\/span>) Category A<\/span>: Buildings erected prior to 1-9-1940.<\/p>\n

(ii<\/span>) Category B<\/span>: Buildings erected between 1-9-1940 and 31-12-1950.<\/p>\n

(iii<\/span>) Category C<\/span>: Buildings erected between 1-1-1951 and 30-9-1969.<\/p>\n

In 1986, Chapter VIII-A (Sections 103-A to 103-M) was inserted into the Mhada<\/span> Act to protect the occupiers\u2019 shelter, prevent building collapses and to promote equitable distribution of ownership and control of tenements to subserve the common good. Its provisions apply to the buildings falling in Category A<\/span>. Section 103-B of the MHADA Act provides for the acquisition of the land together with the building thereon by the State Government on a written request made by not less than 70% members of a cooperative society of occupiers of a building falling under Category A<\/span>. After the payment is deposited by the society with the Land Acquisition Officer, the MHADA Act shall convey the land acquired to the cooperative society of the occupiers thereof with its right, title and interest. Section 1-A was also inserted into the MHADA Act vide the same amendment, which provides that the MHADA Act is protected by Article 31-C<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a> as it was enacted to give effect to the principles specified under Article 39(b<\/span>) which provides that the State shall endeavour to secure that \u201cthe ownership and control of material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good\u201d.<\/p>\n

Beginning of the lis<\/h2>\n

The appellants challenged the constitutionality of Chapter VIII-A of the MHADA Act before the Bombay High Court, on the grounds that it violates Articles 14<\/a> and 19<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>9<\/sup><\/a> on the ground that it deprives the valuable rights of the owners of the properties for negligible amounts and confers the rights on the occupiers of the building irrespective of their status because term \u201coccupier\u201d as defined in the MHADA Act would include even trespassers. It was further contended that the classification of the buildings was \u201cunreal\u201d and there was no effective machinery to fulfil the object of the Act. The High Court dismissed the writs filed by the appellants and upheld the constitutional validity of Chapter VIII-A.10<\/sup><\/a> The High Court relied upon the decision in State of Maharashtra<\/span> v. Basantibai Mohanlal Khetan<\/span>11<\/sup><\/a> (Basantibai Khetan<\/span>) where the Supreme Court upheld Sections 44(3) and (4) of the MHADA Act on the ground that they were protected under Article 31-C. The High Court further held that the provisions of Chapter VIII-A are not discriminatory and do not violate Articles 14 and 19. Thereafter, special leave petitions were filed against the said judgment of the High Court.<\/p>\n

Reference to the 9-Judge Bench<\/h2>\n

The question before the 7-Judge Bench12<\/sup><\/a> was with respect to the interpretation of Article 39(b)<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a> which speaks of the distribution for the public good of the ownership and control of the material resources of the community. The Bench also took note of the 9 Judge decision in Mafatlal case<\/span>13<\/sup><\/a> wherein the Supreme Court had observed \u201cthat the \u2018material resources of the community\u2019 are not confined to public resources but include all resources, natural and man-made, public and private owned is repeatedly affirmed by this Court\u201d.<\/p>\n

Therefore, the Bench was of the opinion that the interpretation of Article 39(b<\/span>) requires reconsideration by a Bench of 9 Judges. It was directed that the matter be listed before a Bench of 9 Judges after the judgment in I.R. Coelho<\/span> v. State of T.N.<\/span>14<\/sup><\/a> is passed because the similar issues have been raised therein.<\/p>\n

Hence, the matter reached the Bench of 9 Judges and the following questions were framed for consideration:<\/p>\n

(1) Whether Article 31-C (as upheld in Kesavananda Bharati case<\/span>15<\/sup><\/a>) survives in the Constitution after the amendment to the provision by the Forty-Second Amendment was struck down by the Supreme Court in Minerva Mills<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span>16<\/sup><\/a>?<\/p>\n

(2) Whether the interpretation of Article 39(b<\/span>) adopted by Justice Krishna Iyer in Ranganatha Reddy case<\/span>17<\/sup><\/a> and followed in Sanjeev Coke case<\/span>18<\/sup><\/a> must be reconsidered? Whether the phrase \u201cmaterial resources of the community\u201d in Article 39(b<\/span>) can be interpreted to include resources that are owned privately and not by the State?<\/p>\n

Historical context of Article 31-C<\/h2>\n

Article 31-C was inserted into the Constitution in 1971 by Section 3 of the Constitution (Twenty-Fifth Amendment) Act, 1971.19<\/sup><\/a> At the time, it read as follows:<\/p>\n

31-C. Saving of laws giving effect to certain directive principles<\/span>.\u2014Notwithstanding anything contained in Article 13, no law giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing the principles specified in clause (b<\/span>) or clause (c<\/span>) of Article 39 shall be deemed to be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with, or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by Articles 14, 19 or Article 31; and no law containing a declaration that it is for giving effect to such policy shall be called in question in any court on the ground that it does not give effect to such policy:<\/p>\n

Provided that when such law is made by the legislature of a State, the provisions of this article shall not apply thereto unless such law, having been reserved for the consideration of the President has received his assent.<\/p>\n

Article 31-C was challenged in Kesavananda Bharati case<\/span>20<\/sup><\/a>, wherein, the validity of the first part of Article 31-C was upheld by a majority of 7 Judges and the words, \u201cand no law containing a declaration that it is for giving effect to such policy shall be called in question in any court on the ground that it does not give effect to such policy\u201d were struck down.<\/p>\n

Thereafter, Article 31-C was amended by the 42nd Amendment and the words \u201cthe principles specified in clause (b<\/span>) or clause (c<\/span>) of Article 39\u201d were substituted with the words \u201call or any of the principles laid down in Part IV\u201d. The said amendment was challenged in Minerva Mills case<\/span>21<\/sup><\/a>. It was held that the amendment was beyond the amending power of the Parliament and void since it damaged the basic structure of the Constitution. Parallelly, the Court was also hearing a challenge to Article 31-C as upheld in Kesavananda Bharati case<\/span>22<\/sup><\/a>, in Waman Rao<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span>23<\/sup><\/a>. The decision of the majority in Waman Rao case<\/span>24<\/sup><\/a> reiterated the position as set out in Kesavananda Bharati case<\/span>25<\/sup><\/a> and upheld the validity of Article 31-C (as it stood prior to the 42nd Amendment).<\/p>\n

Contentions raised by the appellants<\/h2>\n

With respect to the first issue, appellants argued that the effect of the 42nd Amendment is that the words \u201cthe principles specified in clause (b<\/span>) or clause (c<\/span>) of Article 39\u201d were omitted and substituted with \u201call or any of the principles laid down in Part IV\u201d and the effect of the decision in Minerva Mills case<\/span>26<\/sup><\/a> was only to the extent of striking down the words inserted by the 42nd Amendment. The Court cannot revive the words which are specifically omitted by Parliament. Therefore, the protection under Article 31-C was rendered nugatory.<\/p>\n

Whereas, in respect of Article 39(b<\/span>), the appellants argued that it requires that there must not only be a \u201cmaterial resource\u201d, but such resource must also be \u201cof the community\u201d. If the material cannot be traced to the community, it cannot be the subject of the policy. It was further argued that the interpretation of private property given by Justice Krishna Iyer in his separate opinion in Ranganatha Reddy case<\/span>27<\/sup><\/a> which was subsequently followed by the 5-Judge Bench in Sanjeev Coke case<\/span>28<\/sup><\/a>, is too wide. Merely because a privately owned resource meets the qualifier of \u201cmaterial needs\u201d does not make it a material resource of the community. It was further argued that the phrase, \u201cmaterial resources of the community\u201d, refers to resources which produce goods or services for the community or be \u201ccapable of producing wealth for the community\u201d. While dilapidated buildings in Mumbai may fall within the ambit of resources, they cannot constitute \u201cmaterial resources of the community\u201d. It was further argued that the decision in Sanjeev Coke case<\/span>29<\/sup><\/a> is not good law, as it relied upon the minority opinion in Ranganatha Reddy case<\/span>30<\/sup><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Contentions raised by the respondents<\/h2>\n

With respect to the first issue, the respondents argued that once an amendment is set aside, the entire effect of the amendment is invalidated and thus the position as it stood prior to the amendment must stand revived. The respondents relied on the decision in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn.<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span>31<\/sup><\/a> (NJAC decision<\/span>) where, a Bench comprising 5 Judges, held that when a constitutional amendment is struck down, the position that existed prior to the amendment stands revived.<\/p>\n

In respect of the second issue, the respondents argued that the interpretation that Article 39(b<\/span>) includes privately owned resources, has been a consistent position of law in various decisions of the Supreme Court. It was further argued that ownership and control of public resources would not be required to be secured and therefore, it is only private property that is required to be \u201csecured\u201d for the purposes of ownership and control. The terms \u201cownership\u201d and \u201ccontrol\u201d have to be read disjunctively as there may be situations where the State does not acquire ownership but only acquires control. Article 39(b<\/span>) leaves it entirely to the wisdom of the legislature to decide what should constitute \u201cmaterial resources\u201d. Furthermore, the deletion of right to property as a fundamental right under Articles 31 and 19(1)(f<\/span>), also points towards the inclusion of private property within the ambit of \u201cmaterial resources of the community\u201d under Article 39(b<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Majority view<\/h2>\n

Whether Article 31-C survives<\/p>\n

The majority relied upon NJAC decision<\/span>32<\/sup><\/a> and other judgments of Constitution Benches and held that if an amendment is invalidated because it violates the basic structure, the logical corollary to that is that the unamended provision would stand revived. It was further held that to give effect to the repealing portions of Section 4 of the 42nd Amendment while also invalidating the enactment would not result in a return to a constitutional text that is in conformity with the basic structure, it would result in a third novel outcome, which may violate the basic structure. Therefore, the majority comprising of 7 Judges held that Article 31-C as it stood after the decision in Kesavananda Bharati case<\/span>33<\/sup><\/a> remains in force.<\/p>\n

Whether privately owned resources are included under Article 39(b)<\/p>\n

The majority held that in absence of disagreement by a majority of Judges, any subsequent Bench having lesser or coequal strength from relying upon the observations made in a concurring opinion on behalf of minority of Judges which are not discussed by the majority at all. It was further observed that the majority judgment in Ranganatha Reddy case<\/span>34<\/sup><\/a> refrained from making observations with respect to Article 39(b<\/span>) and also indicated that they must not be understood to agree with the observations in the judgment of Justice Krishna Iyer. Therefore, the majority of Judges in Ranganatha Reddy case<\/span>35<\/sup><\/a> did not adopt Justice Krishna Iyer’s view on Article 39(b<\/span>) and therefore, the Bench in Sanjeev Coke case<\/span>36<\/sup><\/a> erred in relying upon the minority opinion followed in Ranganatha Reddy case<\/span>37<\/sup><\/a>.<\/p>\n

The majority noted two broad aspects arising out of Ranganatha Reddy case<\/span>38<\/sup><\/a> and Sanjeev Coke case<\/span>39<\/sup><\/a>, firstly the phrase \u201cmaterial resources of the community\u201d includes privately owned resources and secondly nationalisation or vesting of these private resources in the State falls within the expression \u201cdistribution\u201d and subserves common good.<\/p>\n

The Court then referred to the Debates of the Constituent Assembly with respect to the text of Article 39(b<\/span>). It was observed that:<\/p>\n

(i<\/span>) Directive principles were intended to be instructions or guiding principles to the executive and the legislature. It was believed that the values enshrined therein would help the public in holding the Government accountable at the time of elections.<\/p>\n

(ii<\/span>) Dr Ambedkar did not wish to bind India to one social or economic structure. He believed that future generations would identify the socio-economic structure which best suits the needs of society, and the provisions of directive principles were wide enough to accommodate the same.<\/p>\n

It was therefore held that Dr Ambedkar’s views cannot be interpreted to say that Article 39(b<\/span>) encompasses all privately owned resources and that any legislation to convert private ownership to public ownership would fall within its ambit.<\/p>\n

The Court then analysed the opinion of Justice Krishna Iyer in Ranganatha Reddy case<\/span>40<\/sup><\/a> and the decision in Sanjeev Coke case<\/span>41<\/sup><\/a> and summarised the conclusions as follows:<\/p>\n

(i<\/span>) Purpose behind Article 39(b<\/span>) is to allow economic restructuring and prevention of concentration of wealth.<\/p>\n

(ii<\/span>) The phrase \u201cmaterial resources of the community\u201d includes all resources which are capable of producing wealth. Resources of an individual are the resources of the community and thus, privately owned property is covered by the phrase.<\/p>\n

(iii<\/span>) \u201cDistribution\u201d must be given a wide interpretation so as to include acquisition of privately owned resources by the State.<\/p>\n

The majority held that this interpretation only satisfies one of three requirements of the phrase \u201cmaterial resources of the community\u201d that is the property in question must be a resource. It ignores the qualifiers that they must meet, that is \u201cmaterial\u201d and \u201cof the community\u201d. It was held that the use of the words \u201cof the community\u201d signifies the specific intention to include some privately owned resources. It was further held that the said interpretation was incompatible with Article 300-A (right to property) which is a constitutional right. However, there is no bar on the inclusion of private property as a class and if a privately owned resource meets the qualifiers of being a \u201cmaterial resource\u201d and \u201cof the community\u201d, it may fall within the net of the provision. The Bench then laid down the following factors to determine whether a privately owned resource falls within the ambit of Article 39(b<\/span>):<\/p>\n

(i<\/span>) nature of the resource and its inherent characteristics;<\/p>\n

(ii<\/span>) impact of the resource on the well-being of the community;<\/p>\n

(iii<\/span>) scarcity of the resource; and<\/p>\n

(iv<\/span>) consequences of concentration of such a resource in the hands of a few.<\/p>\n

The majority, however, agreed with the wide interpretation given to the term \u201cdistribution\u201d. It was held that various forms of distribution which can be adopted by the State cannot be exhaustively detailed. It was held that there is no Bar on the mode of distribution so long as the benefits percolate to the people as common good. In some cases, vesting of the resource in the State may serve the common good while in other cases, a resource may be distributed amongst private players to achieve this purpose.<\/p>\n

Minority views<\/h2>\n

Justice Nagarathna’s view<\/p>\n

In her opinion, Justice Nagarathna concurred with the majority’s opinion on both aspects. However, she criticised the Chief Justice for certain unwarranted remarks made by him on Justice Krishna Iyer and Justice Chinappa Reddy for the views taken by them in Ranganatha Reddy case<\/span>42<\/sup><\/a> and Sanjeev Coke case<\/span>43<\/sup><\/a> respectively. Justice Nagarathna held that the Bench in Sanjeev Coke case<\/span>44<\/sup><\/a> independently upheld the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972<\/a>45<\/sup><\/a> which was challenged therein, and reference were made to Justice Iyer’s opinion in Ranganatha Reddy case<\/span>46<\/sup><\/a> and the majority view in Minerva Mills case<\/span>47<\/sup><\/a>. Both the judgments upheld the respective Nationalisation Acts; therefore, it cannot be held that the Bench in Sanjeev Coke case<\/span>48<\/sup><\/a> \u201cviolated judicial discipline\u201d.<\/p>\n

Justice Nagarathna agreed with the majority’s conclusion that only some privately owned resources would fall within the scope of \u201cmaterial resources of the community\u201d and not all. However, she added that privately owned resources except \u201cpersonal effects\u201d of an individual can come within the scope of \u201cmaterial resources of the community\u201d provided that such resources get transformed as \u201cresources of the community\u201d. She held that the transformation can be done by: (i<\/span>) acquisition; (ii<\/span>) nationalisation; (iii<\/span>) vesting of resource in the State by operation of law; and (iv<\/span>) donation\/gift\/endowment\/grant\/dedication by the owner of the resource. In addition to the test laid down to answer whether a particular privately owned resource falls within the ambit of Article 39(b<\/span>), Justice Nagarathna opined that privately owned resources are not straightaway distributed or handed over to other private persons by the State. First of all, private resource becomes \u201cresource of the community\u201d through methods adopted by the State, such as vesting, acquisition, etc. and once they become resources vested in the State they get transformed as \u201cmaterial resources of the community\u201d. Material resources which are privately owned or controlled by private persons cannot straightaway be construed to be \u201cmaterial resources of the community\u201d.<\/p>\n

It was further held that mere vesting of a private resource in the State without anything further would not constitute \u201cdistribution\u201d in all cases unless the policy of State determines whether such resources have to remain under the ownership and control of the State. Vesting or nationalisation of a private resource in the State is only compliance with the conditions precedent under Article 300-A<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>.49<\/sup><\/a> It is up to the State to decide whether to retain the ownership and control of a resource or to actually distribute it to the public or only to certain eligible persons by way of lease, assignment, allotment, etc.<\/p>\n

Justice Dhulia’s view<\/p>\n

Justice Dhulia concurred with the view taken by the majority vis-\u00e0-vis Article 31-C. However, he dissented with the view taken in respect of the interpretation of \u201cmaterial resources of community\u201d under Article 39(b<\/span>). Justice Dhulia opined that the majority view holds that not all privately owned resources are material resources of the community and further limits the power of legislature to a non-exhaustive list of factors to determine which resources can be considered as \u201cmaterial resources\u201d. He opined that there was no need for such pre-emptive determination.<\/p>\n

Justice Dhulia opined that the purpose of not elaborating \u201cmaterial resources of the community\u201d was not to restrict its meaning but to leave it to the legislature to include any material resource which would subserve common good. He opined that the choice of words \u201cmaterial resources\u201d instead of \u201cnatural resources\u201d is also significant.<\/p>\n

Justice Dhulia opined that even before the decision in Ranganatha Reddy case<\/span>50<\/sup><\/a>, there was a presumption that all privately owned resources fall within the ambit of \u201cmaterial resources of the community\u201d therefore, holding otherwise would upset the long-settled meaning given to the phrase consistently in several judgments by the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n

Justice Dhulia observed that the minority opinion in Ranganatha Reddy case<\/span>51<\/sup><\/a> does not fall under Article 145(5) as a dissenting judgment. He further observed that the majority in Ranganatha Reddy case<\/span>52<\/sup><\/a> did not disagree with Justice Krishan Iyer’s opinion, it was merely said that \u201cWe must not be understood to agree with all that he has said in his judgment in this regard.\u201d It was further opined that in cases where a minority of Judges has given a decision on a point on which the majority has remained silent, such opinion would be binding on all the courts in India and for the Supreme Court it would have at least persuasive value. Therefore, he opined that the 5-Judge Bench in Sanjeev Coke case<\/span>53<\/sup><\/a> was persuaded by the opinion of Justice Krishna Iyer and there was no violation of judicial discipline for the reason that the Bench did not go against the law laid down by the majority in Ranganatha Reddy case<\/span>54<\/sup><\/a> but only adopted the logic of the 3 Judges on which the majority therein was silent.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/h2>\n

This judgment clarifies the scope of Article 39(b<\/span>) and the State’s power to acquire privately owned resources. The Court reiterates the flexibility in terms of economic ideology as envisaged by the Constituent Assembly. It reiterates the aim of the Constituent Assembly to achieve socio-economic equality in a country that was and is still struggling with a vast income gap. It provides a non-exhaustive list to test a legislation purporting to be protected by Article 31-C. The test laid down by the majority of 7 Judges, makes it easier to determine whether and how the State can acquire and distribute a privately owned resource with a view to subserve common good. The majority has held that there is no fixed way of distributing a resource as long as the benefits percolate to the lowest strata of society and the same would be up to the legislature to determine.<\/p>\n

Overall, this judgment is a significant development in the Constitutional Jurisprudence of India, clarifying the relationship between an individual’s right to property and the State’s power to acquire ownership and\/or control of such property in furtherance of the socio-economic directive envisaged in Article 39(b)<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

*Partner, Numen Law Offices.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

**Associate, Numen Law Offices.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

1.<\/a> (2013) 7 SCC 522<\/a>.<\/p>\n

2.<\/a> Constitution of India<\/a>, Art. 39(b)<\/a>.<\/p>\n

3.<\/a> Constitution of India<\/a>, Art. 31-C<\/a>.<\/p>\n

4.<\/a> (1973) 4 SCC 225<\/a>.<\/p>\n

5.<\/a> (1997) 5 SCC 536<\/a>.<\/p>\n

6.<\/a> (1983) 1 SCC 147<\/a>.<\/p>\n

7.<\/a> (1977) 4 SCC 471<\/a>.<\/p>\n

8.<\/a> (1977) 4 SCC 471<\/a>.<\/p>\n

9.<\/a> Constitution of India<\/a>, Arts. 14<\/a> and 19<\/a>.<\/p>\n

10.<\/a> Property Owners’ Assn.<\/span> v. State of Maharashtra<\/span>, 1991 SCC OnLine Bom 521<\/a>.<\/p>\n

11.<\/a> (1986) 2 SCC 516<\/a>.<\/p>\n

12.<\/a> (2013) 7 SCC 522<\/a>.<\/p>\n

13.<\/a> (1997) 5 SCC 536<\/a>.<\/p>\n

14.<\/a> (2007) 2 SCC 1<\/a>.<\/p>\n

15.<\/a> (1973) 4 SCC 225<\/a>.<\/p>\n

16.<\/a> (1980) 3 SCC 625<\/a>.<\/p>\n

17.<\/a> (1977) 4 SCC 471<\/a>.<\/p>\n

18.<\/a> (1983) 1 SCC 147<\/a>.<\/p>\n

19.<\/a> Constitution (Twenty-Fifth Amendment) Act, 1971, S. 3.<\/p>\n

20.<\/a> (1973) 4 SCC 225<\/a>.<\/p>\n

21.<\/a> (1980) 3 SCC 625<\/a>.<\/p>\n

22.<\/a> (1973) 4 SCC 225<\/a>.<\/p>\n

23.<\/a> (1981) 2 SCC 362<\/a>.<\/p>\n

24.<\/a> (1981) 2 SCC 362<\/a>.<\/p>\n

25.<\/a> (1973) 4 SCC 225<\/a>.<\/p>\n

26.<\/a> (1980) 3 SCC 625<\/a>.<\/p>\n

27.<\/a> (1977) 4 SCC 471<\/a>.<\/p>\n

28.<\/a> (1983) 1 SCC 147<\/a>.<\/p>\n

29.<\/a> (1983) 1 SCC 147<\/a>.<\/p>\n

30.<\/a> (1977) 4 SCC 471<\/a>.<\/p>\n

31.<\/a> (2016) 5 SCC 1<\/a>.<\/p>\n

32.<\/a> (2016) 5 SCC 1<\/a>.<\/p>\n

33.<\/a> (1973) 4 SCC 225<\/a>.<\/p>\n

34.<\/a> (1977) 4 SCC 471<\/a>.<\/p>\n

35.<\/a> (1977) 4 SCC 471<\/a>.<\/p>\n

36.<\/a> (1983) 1 SCC 147<\/a>.<\/p>\n

37.<\/a> (1977) 4 SCC 471<\/a>.<\/p>\n

38.<\/a> (1977) 4 SCC 471<\/a>.<\/p>\n

39.<\/a> (1983) 1 SCC 147<\/a>.<\/p>\n

40.<\/a> (1977) 4 SCC 471<\/a>.<\/p>\n

41.<\/a> (1983) 1 SCC 147<\/a>.<\/p>\n

42.<\/a> (1977) 4 SCC 471<\/a>.<\/p>\n

43.<\/a> (1983) 1 SCC 147<\/a>.<\/p>\n

44.<\/a> (1983) 1 SCC 147<\/a>.<\/p>\n

45.<\/a> Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972<\/a>.<\/p>\n

46.<\/a> (1977) 4 SCC 471<\/a>.<\/p>\n

47.<\/a> (1980) 3 SCC 625<\/a>.<\/p>\n

48.<\/a> (1983) 1 SCC 147<\/a>.<\/p>\n

49.<\/a> Constitution of India<\/a>, Art. 300-A<\/a>.<\/p>\n

50.<\/a> (1977) 4 SCC 471<\/a>.<\/p>\n

51.<\/a> (1977) 4 SCC 471<\/a>.<\/p>\n

52.<\/a> (1977) 4 SCC 471<\/a>.<\/p>\n

53.<\/a> (1983) 1 SCC 147<\/a>.<\/p>\n

54.<\/a> (1977) 4 SCC 471<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

by C. George Thomas* and Ansh Mittal**<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":341682,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[20271,77550],"tags":[15921,75931,78772,78770,78771,45561],"class_list":["post-341675","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-experts_corner","category-numen-law-offices","tag-constitution-bench","tag-material-resources-of-community","tag-mhada-act","tag-property-rights-and-common-good","tag-supreme-court-clarifies","tag-tussle"],"yoast_head":"\nTussle between Property Rights and Common Good: Supreme Court Clarifies | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"In Property Owners\u2019 Assn. v. State of Maharashtra1, a 9-Judge Constitution Bench, has held by a majority of 8:1\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/02\/17\/tussle-between-property-rights-and-common-good-supreme-court-clarifies\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Tussle between Property Rights and Common Good: Supreme Court Clarifies\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"In Property Owners\u2019 Assn. v. State of Maharashtra1, a 9-Judge Constitution Bench, has held by a majority of 8:1\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/02\/17\/tussle-between-property-rights-and-common-good-supreme-court-clarifies\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-02-17T09:30:02+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-03-07T06:32:09+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/Property-Rights-and-Common-Good.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Tussle between Property Rights and Common Good: Supreme Court Clarifies\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/02\/17\/tussle-between-property-rights-and-common-good-supreme-court-clarifies\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/02\/17\/tussle-between-property-rights-and-common-good-supreme-court-clarifies\/\",\"name\":\"Tussle between Property Rights and Common Good: Supreme Court Clarifies | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/02\/17\/tussle-between-property-rights-and-common-good-supreme-court-clarifies\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/02\/17\/tussle-between-property-rights-and-common-good-supreme-court-clarifies\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/Property-Rights-and-Common-Good.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-02-17T09:30:02+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-03-07T06:32:09+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"description\":\"In Property Owners\u2019 Assn. v. State of Maharashtra1, a 9-Judge Constitution Bench, has held by a majority of 8:1\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/02\/17\/tussle-between-property-rights-and-common-good-supreme-court-clarifies\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/02\/17\/tussle-between-property-rights-and-common-good-supreme-court-clarifies\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/02\/17\/tussle-between-property-rights-and-common-good-supreme-court-clarifies\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/Property-Rights-and-Common-Good.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/Property-Rights-and-Common-Good.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Property Rights and Common Good\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/02\/17\/tussle-between-property-rights-and-common-good-supreme-court-clarifies\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Tussle between Property Rights and Common Good: Supreme Court Clarifies\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Tussle between Property Rights and Common Good: Supreme Court Clarifies | SCC Times","description":"In Property Owners\u2019 Assn. v. State of Maharashtra1, a 9-Judge Constitution Bench, has held by a majority of 8:1","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/02\/17\/tussle-between-property-rights-and-common-good-supreme-court-clarifies\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Tussle between Property Rights and Common Good: Supreme Court Clarifies","og_description":"In Property Owners\u2019 Assn. v. State of Maharashtra1, a 9-Judge Constitution Bench, has held by a majority of 8:1","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/02\/17\/tussle-between-property-rights-and-common-good-supreme-court-clarifies\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-02-17T09:30:02+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-03-07T06:32:09+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/Property-Rights-and-Common-Good.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Tussle between Property Rights and Common Good: Supreme Court Clarifies","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/02\/17\/tussle-between-property-rights-and-common-good-supreme-court-clarifies\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/02\/17\/tussle-between-property-rights-and-common-good-supreme-court-clarifies\/","name":"Tussle between Property Rights and Common Good: Supreme Court Clarifies | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/02\/17\/tussle-between-property-rights-and-common-good-supreme-court-clarifies\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/02\/17\/tussle-between-property-rights-and-common-good-supreme-court-clarifies\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/Property-Rights-and-Common-Good.webp","datePublished":"2025-02-17T09:30:02+00:00","dateModified":"2025-03-07T06:32:09+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"description":"In Property Owners\u2019 Assn. v. State of Maharashtra1, a 9-Judge Constitution Bench, has held by a majority of 8:1","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/02\/17\/tussle-between-property-rights-and-common-good-supreme-court-clarifies\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/02\/17\/tussle-between-property-rights-and-common-good-supreme-court-clarifies\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/02\/17\/tussle-between-property-rights-and-common-good-supreme-court-clarifies\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/Property-Rights-and-Common-Good.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/Property-Rights-and-Common-Good.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Property Rights and Common Good"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/02\/17\/tussle-between-property-rights-and-common-good-supreme-court-clarifies\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Tussle between Property Rights and Common Good: Supreme Court Clarifies"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/Property-Rights-and-Common-Good.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":334430,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/05\/not-all-private-properties-are-material-resources-of-community-under-art-39b-for-supreme-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":341675,"position":0},"title":"Not all private properties are \u2018material resources of community\u2019 under Art. 39(b) for state to equally distribute; Supreme Court rules in landmark 7:2 verdict","author":"Editor","date":"November 5, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The 9-Judge Bench unanimously held that Article 31-C of the Constitution remains in force to the extent that it was upheld in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"private properties under Art. 39(b)","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/private-properties-under-Art.-39b.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/private-properties-under-Art.-39b.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/private-properties-under-Art.-39b.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/private-properties-under-Art.-39b.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":334561,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/06\/private-resource-can-become-resource-of-community-distributed-for-common-good-justice-bv-nagarathna\/","url_meta":{"origin":341675,"position":1},"title":"How private resources become resources \u2018of community\u2019 & distributed for common good? Deciphering Justice BV Nagarathna\u2019s partial dissent in 9-J Bench verdict","author":"Editor","date":"November 6, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cUnless and until private ownership and control of the material resources are transformed or converted into the \u201cmaterial resources of the community\u201d which is a condition precedent, there cannot be distribution of the said resources by the State. Otherwise, the State would merely transfer privately owned material resources from one\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"private properties as resource of community","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/private-properties-as-resource-of-community.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/private-properties-as-resource-of-community.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/private-properties-as-resource-of-community.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/private-properties-as-resource-of-community.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":343210,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/07\/landmark-constitution-bench-judgments-2024-part-iii\/","url_meta":{"origin":341675,"position":2},"title":"Summary of Landmark Constitution Bench Judgments of 2024 (Part III of III)","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"March 7, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"by Siddharth R. Gupta* and Khushi Dwivedi**","rel":"","context":"In "Experts Corner"","block_context":{"text":"Experts Corner","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/experts_corner\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Constitution Bench Judgments 2024","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/Constitution-Bench-Judgments-2024.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/Constitution-Bench-Judgments-2024.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/Constitution-Bench-Judgments-2024.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/Constitution-Bench-Judgments-2024.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":283770,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/02\/13\/ex-communication-dawoodi-bohra-right-to-religion-constitutional-morality-civil-death-untouchability-sabarimala-9-judge-bench-supreme-court-constitution-bench-legal-updates-research-knowledge-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":341675,"position":3},"title":"Ex-communication in Dawoodi Bohras matter deserves to be tagged with 9-judge bench Sabarimala Review due to overlapping issues: Supreme Court 5-judge Constitution Bench","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"February 13, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The 5-judge Constitution Bench observed that the decision which will be rendered by the nine-Judge Bench in the Sabarimala Temple Review will have a direct impact on the questions which arise for determination in this case.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"ex-communiation","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/Supreme-Court-5-judge-Constitution-Bench.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":338324,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/02\/2024-dissents-landmark-verdicts-yearly-review-sc-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":341675,"position":4},"title":"2024: A Year of Bold Dissents in the Face of Landmark Verdicts","author":"Sucheta","date":"January 2, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"2024 was a year of pathbreaking verdicts on several issues such as Electoral Bonds, Citizenship Act, Tax\/Royalty on Mines, Minority Institutions etc. Some major issues saw unanimous and near unanimous verdicts by the Supreme Court; however, there were notable Dissenting Opinions in 2024 which shed light on several key legal\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Legal RoundUp"","block_context":{"text":"Legal RoundUp","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/columns-for-roundup\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Dissents Supreme Court verdicts","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/Dissents-Supreme-Court-verdicts.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/Dissents-Supreme-Court-verdicts.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/Dissents-Supreme-Court-verdicts.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/Dissents-Supreme-Court-verdicts.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":338242,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/31\/supreme-court-constitution-and-larger-bench-judgments-in-2024\/","url_meta":{"origin":341675,"position":5},"title":"Supreme Court Constitution and Larger Bench Judgments which steered India\u2019s course in 2024","author":"Editor","date":"December 31, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The Supreme Court\u2019s 2024 decisions have marked a significant turning point in the country\u2019s legal and constitutional framework. Key rulings delivered by Constitutional Benches on Electoral bonds, private property, royalty as tax, AMU\u2019s minority status, sub-classification within reserved categories, etc. have left an impact on fundamental rights, political transparency and\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Legal RoundUp"","block_context":{"text":"Legal RoundUp","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/columns-for-roundup\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Constitutional Bench 2024 roundup","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/Constitutional-Bench-2024-roundup.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/Constitutional-Bench-2024-roundup.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/Constitutional-Bench-2024-roundup.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/Constitutional-Bench-2024-roundup.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/341675","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=341675"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/341675\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/341682"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=341675"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=341675"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=341675"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}