Question 1

The government is now completely barred from acquiring any private property for public welfare.

Accepted Answer

The government can still acquire private property, but it must prove that the specific property qualifies as a 'material resource' based on factors like scarcity, public utility, and the risk of monopolization.

Question 2

The Supreme Court struck down Article 31C because it limited the scope of Article 39(b).

Accepted Answer

The 9-judge bench unanimously upheld the existence and constitutional validity of Article 31C, maintaining its role as a protective shield for valid DPSP-related laws.

Question 3

Consider the following statements regarding the 2024 Supreme Court verdict on Article 39(b):
1. The 9-judge Constitution Bench unanimously agreed that Article 31C remains a valid part of the Constitution.
2. The judgment explicitly overruled Justice Krishna Iyer's minority opinion in the State of Karnataka v. Ranganatha Reddy case (1977).
3. According to the majority verdict, all privately owned properties are explicitly excluded from being classified as 'material resources of the community'.

How many of the above statements are correct?

Accepted Answer

(b) Only two — Statements 1 and 2 are correct. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Court ruled that 'not all' private properties are material resources, meaning *some* private properties can still be acquired if they meet specific criteria like scarcity and public trust. The Court did not explicitly exclude all private property.

Question 4

Match List I (Key Supreme Court Cases) with List II (Their Significance regarding Property and DPSPs):

List I:
1. Property Owners Association (2024)
2. State of Karnataka v. Ranganatha Reddy (1977)
3. Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing (1982)
4. Minerva Mills (1980)

List II:
A. Struck a balance between Fundamental Rights (Part III) and DPSPs (Part IV)
B. Upheld the doctrine by adopting a previous minority socialist view into a majority precedent
C. Ruled that private property does not automatically qualify as a community resource
D. Introduced the minority doctrine that all private property could be a material resource

Accepted Answer

(a) 1-C, 2-D, 3-B, 4-A — Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra (2024) is the current case that ruled against blanket acquisition (1-C). Ranganatha Reddy (1977) featured Justice Krishna Iyer's expansive minority view (2-D). Sanjeev Coke (1982) adopted that minority view into a binding majority precedent (3-B). Minerva Mills (1980) is the classic case that balanced Part III and Part IV of the Constitution (4-A). Any other combination scrambles this established judicial timeline.

Question 5

Assertion (A): The Supreme Court in 2024 ruled that the government must evaluate factors like scarcity and public trust before classifying a private property as a 'material resource' under Article 39(b).
Reason (R): The 9-judge bench declared Article 31C unconstitutional, thereby removing the absolute shield for laws made to implement Directive Principles of State Policy.

Select the correct answer:

Accepted Answer

(c) A is true but R is false — The Assertion is true; the majority opinion set specific criteria (nature, scarcity, public trust) for acquiring private property under Article 39(b). The Reason is false; the bench unanimously upheld the validity and existence of Article 31C, maintaining its protective shield for DPSP-related laws that legitimately qualify.

Supreme Court Verdict on Private Property and Article 39b

Gukesh Dommaraju Wins World Chess Championship