In a landmark ruling on Tuesday, the Supreme Court, in a 7:1:1 majority verdict, held that not all private property can be seized by the government, even if such acquisitions are claimed to be for the greater good. The decision emphasized that private ownership cannot be overridden in every instance under the guise of public interest.

The nine-judge Constitution bench, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, addressed the contentious issue of whether private properties could be classified as “material resources of the community” under Article 39(b) of the Indian Constitution. This classification would allow State authorities to acquire such properties and distribute them in service of the “common good.” However, the court concluded that individual ownership rights cannot be universally subjugated to public welfare claims, unless the resource in question holds clear material significance for the community.

The majority opinion underscored, “Not all privately-owned resources can be acquired by the State, even as the State can stake claims over resources that are material and are held by the community, for the public good.”

The ruling carries significant implications for Article 31C of the Constitution, which has undergone scrutiny since the landmark Minerva Mills case. Article 31C was originally intended to support laws promoting the Directive Principles of State Policy, but this ruling now limits its scope concerning private property acquisitions.

Chief Justice Chandrachud, alongside six other judges, rendered the majority verdict. Justice B.V. Nagarathna provided a partially concurring opinion, while Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia authored a dissent.

The court also addressed its role in economic matters, clarifying that its duty is not to dictate economic policies but to uphold the principles of “economic democracy.”