🌟 Case name: Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra, 2024

✅ Provision—Article 39(b) reads as follows:
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.

✅ Issues: Total 2
1. Article 31C:
Whether Article 31C (as upheld in Kesavananda Bharati) survives in the Constitution after the amendment to the provision by the
forty-second amendment was struck down by this Court in Minerva mills;
2. Article 39(b):
Whether the interpretation of Article 39(b) adopted by Justice Krishna Iyer in State of Karnataka v. Ranganatha Reddy (1978) and followed in Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.(1983) by Justice O Chinnappa Reddy must be reconsidered.
Whether the phrase ‘material resources of the community’ in
Article 39(b) can be interpreted to include resources that are owned
privately and not by the state.

In this brief we are dealing the second issue—

✅ Bench- 7:2 Majority (Nagarathana, J and Dhulia, J dissented)
😁 Madam Ji as always


✅ Ratio Decidendi (let's start 😉)