LexPROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION & ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1 : 2024 INSC 835 Property Owners Association & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 1012 of 2002) 05 November 2024 [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud,* CJI, Hrishikesh Roy, B.V. Nagarathna,* Sudhanshu Dhulia,* J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, Satish Chandra Sharma and Augustine George Masih, JJ.] Issue for Consideration (1) Whether Article 31C (as upheld in Kesavananda Bharati case) survives in the Constitution after amendment to the provision by the forty-second amendment was struck down by the Supreme Court in Minerva Mills case; and (2) Whether the interpretation of Article 39(b) adopted by Justice Krishna Iyer in Ranganatha Reddy case and followed in Sanjeev Coke case must be reconsidered; and 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. Headnotes† A. Constitution of India – Art.31C – Art.31C (as upheld in Kesavananda Bharati case), if survives in the Constitution after amendment to the provision by the forty-second amendment was struck down by the Supreme Court in Minerva Mills case – Held: Article 31C to the extent that it was upheld in Kesavananda Bharati case remains in force. Held [per Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI (for himself and for Hrishikesh Roy, J. B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, * Author Ed. Note: There are three judgments. One judgment was pronounced by Hon’ble Dr Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Chief Justice of India, on behalf of himself, Hon’ble Mr Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Hon’ble Mr Justice J B Pardiwala, Hon’ble Mr Justice Manoj Misra, Hon’ble Mr Justice Rajesh Bindal, Hon’ble Mr Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Hon’ble Mr Justice Augustine George Masih. Hon’ble Mrs Justice B V Nagarathna and Hon’ble Mr Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia pronounced their separate judgments. 2 [2024] 11 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Rajesh Bindal, Satish Chandra Sharma, and Augustine George Masih, JJ.)]: 1. Article 31C to the extent that it was upheld in Kesavananda Bharati v Union of India remains in force. [Para 229(a)] 2.1. By Section 4 of the Forty-Second Amendment, the words “the principles specified in clause (b) or clause (c) of Article 39” in Article 31-C were replaced with the words “all or any of the principles laid down in Part IV.” This is a case of substitution. Section 4 of the Forty-Second Amendment was subsequently struck down in Minerva Mills. Where an amendment substituting certain text with certain alternate text is invalidated, the effect is that the unamended text continues in force. This is because the legislative intent of repeal and enactment in such cases is composite and cannot be separated. To give effect to the repeal and not the enactment would result in an outcome which does not correlate with legislative intent, and, as Justice Hidayatullah noted in Laxmibai “leave the original section truncated” resulting in absurd outcomes. This would in effect invalidate the original, valid and constitutional provision despite there being no constitutional fault with it nor the legislature intending to repeal it. Thus, the presumption would be that after Minerva Mills, the unamended Article 31-C would continue in force. Indeed, it is evident that cases such as Bhim Singh and Sanjeev Coke proceeded on this presumption. [Para 69] 2.2. The only plausible exception to this presumption would be if it could be demonstrated that Parliament, when enacting the Forty-Second Amendment would have repealed the words “the principles specified in clause (b) or clause (c) of Article 39” independent of their enactment of the words “all or any of the principles laid down in Part IV.” In this case, no reference to the broader legislative proceedings or external aids is necessary to arrive at the inference that Parliament would not have independently repealed these words. The text of the amendment adopted by Parliament itself makes it abundantly clear that there was no independent intention to repeal. The effect of Section 4 of the Forty-Second Amendment was to expand the scope of the immunity provided by Article 31-C to legislation. Under the unamended Article [2024] 11 S.C.R. 3 Property Owners Association & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 31-C, immunity was only provided to legislation if it gave effect to the Directive Principles found in clause (b) or clause (c) of Article 39. Howeve
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.