Article 39 of the Indian Constitution, located within Part IV outlining the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs), provides several crucial directives to the State aimed at securing a social order wherein justice—social, economic, and political—informs all the institutions of national life. These principles, while not directly enforceable by courts, are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws.
Among the various sub-clauses of Article 39, clause (b) stands out as a significant statement of the State’s commitment towards economic justice and equitable distribution of wealth and resources. It lays down a foundational principle for structuring the economy to prevent concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment.
Original Text
Article 39 states: The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing—
…
(b) that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good;
Detailed Explanation
Article 39(b) mandates the State to formulate policies that ensure the ownership and control of the “material resources of the community” are distributed in a manner that “best subserves the common good.” This clause embodies a core socialist principle aimed at preventing the concentration of wealth and resources in the hands of a few and promoting an equitable distribution for the welfare of the entire society.
Let’s break down the key phrases:
- “Material resources of the community”: This term has been interpreted broadly by the courts. It includes all resources, whether movable or immovable, tangible or intangible, which are capable of being owned or controlled by the community. This encompasses not just land and natural resources, but also means of production, wealth, and potentially even human resources or skills that can be mobilised for collective benefit. The community owns or controls these resources in a collective sense, irrespective of individual private ownership.
- “Ownership and control”: This refers to the rights associated with possessing, managing, and determining the use of the material resources. The State is directed to influence both the legal ownership patterns and the effective control mechanisms over these resources.
- “So distributed”: This is the operative part. It doesn’t necessarily mean equal distribution, but rather a distribution pattern designed to benefit the largest number of people and the society as a whole. It implies state intervention to modify existing patterns of ownership and control if they are found to be detrimental to the common good. This can take various forms, including land reforms, nationalisation of industries (like banks, insurance, coal mines), state regulation of key sectors, progressive taxation, and welfare schemes.
- “Best to subserve the common good”: This is the ultimate objective. The distribution of resources must be guided by the principle of promoting the welfare and prosperity of the community as a whole, rather than individual or sectional interests. The “common good” is a dynamic concept defined by the prevailing socio-economic conditions and the aspirations of the people, as reflected in state policy and legislation.
Article 39(b) provides the constitutional basis for significant economic legislation aimed at reducing inequalities and establishing a welfare state. It has been a guiding principle for land ceiling laws, abolition of zamindari, nationalisation of key industries and financial institutions, and policies related to resource allocation.
Crucially, the tension between Directive Principles like Article 39(b) and Fundamental Rights (particularly the right to property, which existed before the 44th Amendment) has been a subject of extensive judicial scrutiny. The 25th Amendment Act introduced Article 31C, which initially prioritised laws giving effect to Article 39(b) and (c) over Fundamental Rights under Articles 14, 19, and 31. While the original scope of Article 31C was narrowed by the Supreme Court (in Kesavananda Bharati case, invalidating the part that prevented judicial review), the core idea of giving precedence to laws implementing 39(b) and (c) over Articles 14 and 19 remains constitutionally valid after the 42nd Amendment made it applicable to all DPSPs, and the Minerva Mills case limited this precedence only to Articles 14 and 19.
Thus, Article 39(b) serves as a potent constitutional tool justifying state action to reshape the economic structure for achieving social justice and equitable distribution, placing the welfare of the community above absolute individual property rights when necessary.
Detailed Notes
- Part IV of the Indian Constitution (Directive Principles of State Policy - DPSPs).
- Directive to the State: The State shall direct its policy towards securing this objective.
- Focuses on the distribution of “material resources of the community”.
- “Material resources” is interpreted broadly: includes all tangible and intangible resources (land, minerals, wealth, means of production, etc.) that are collectively relevant.
- Pertains to both “ownership” and “control” of these resources.
- The purpose of distribution is to “best subserve the common good”.
- Aims to prevent concentration of wealth and resources in the hands of a few.
- Embodies socialist principles and the goal of a welfare state.
- Provides the constitutional basis for laws promoting equitable distribution and economic justice.
- Examples of policies/laws based on Article 39(b):
- Land reforms (abolition of zamindari, land ceiling acts).
- Nationalisation of industries (banks, insurance, coal, etc.).
- Regulation of key sectors.
- Policies related to resource allocation and management.
- Non-justiciable: Cannot be enforced in a court of law directly.
- Fundamental in governance: State has a duty to apply this principle in making laws.
- Relation with Fundamental Rights:
- Historically significant due to conflict with the right to property (Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31, now repealed/modified).
- Article 31C provides protection to laws giving effect to Article 39(b) (and 39(c)) from challenge on grounds of violating Article 14 (Equality) and Article 19 (Freedoms).
- The protection of Article 31C was extended to all DPSPs by the 42nd Amendment (1976), but the Supreme Court in Minerva Mills case (1980) restricted this protection back only to Article 39(b) and 39(c), holding that the extension to all DPSPs was unconstitutional as it would subordinate Fundamental Rights to DPSPs, violating the basic structure of the Constitution.
- Thus, laws made to implement Article 39(b) enjoy constitutional immunity under Article 31C from challenge under Articles 14 and 19.
Additional Comments
- Article 39(b) is considered one of the pillars for achieving social and economic justice in India.
- It reflects the framers’ intent to move away from a purely laissez-faire economic system towards a more interventionist state ensuring equitable distribution.
- Key Supreme Court cases interpreting or relating to Article 39(b) include State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh (validating Zamindari abolition), Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (upholding Article 31C’s validity but striking down part precluding judicial review), Minerva Mills v. Union of India (limiting the protection of Article 31C to only Article 39(b) & (c)), and Waman Rao v. Union of India (upholding the validity of Article 31C for laws enacted before the Kesavananda Bharati judgment).
- The principle continues to be relevant in contemporary debates regarding resource allocation, wealth distribution, and state control over strategic assets.
- It represents a crucial element of India’s commitment to establishing a socialist pattern of society, as envisaged by the Preamble (socialist and secular nature added by 42nd Amendment).
Summary
Article 39(b) of the Indian Constitution is a directive principle requiring the State to formulate policies ensuring that the ownership and control of the community’s material resources are distributed in a manner that best serves the common good. This principle serves as the basis for state intervention to prevent wealth concentration, achieve equitable distribution, and promote social and economic justice, guiding significant legislative actions like land reforms and nationalisation aimed at establishing a welfare state. Laws enacted to give effect to this directive principle receive protection under Article 31C from challenge based on violation of the Fundamental Rights to equality (Article 14) and freedom (Article 19).