The Supreme Court emphasized that the Constitution was designed to instigate a "sense of social transformation." It cautioned against the notion that an individual's private property couldn't be considered a resource for the community and utilized by state authorities for the "common good," deeming such a perspective as "dangerous."

A nine-judge bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, made these remarks while deliberating on whether privately-owned resources could be classified as "material resources of the community." This discussion arose during arguments presented by various parties, including the Property Owners Association (POA) of Mumbai, who strongly contended that private properties should not be subject to takeover by state authorities under constitutional provisions such as Articles 39(b) and 31C.

The bench is grappling with a complex legal issue raised in the petitions: whether private properties can be classified as "material resources of the community" according to Article 39(b) of the Constitution. This provision falls within the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP), adding layers of intricacy to the ongoing deliberations.

"It may be a little extreme to suggest that 'material resources of the community' only means public resources and we do not have their origin in the private property of an individual. I will tell you why it would be dangerous to take that view."

"Take simple things like mines and even private forests. For instance, for us to say that the governmental policy will not apply to the private forests under Article 39 (b)... therefore keep the hands off. It will be extremely dangerous as a proposition," said the bench which also comprised justices Hrishikesh Roy, B V Nagarathna, Sudhanshu Dhulia, J B Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, Satish Chandra Sharma and Augustine George Masih.

"The Constitution was intended to bring about social transformation and we cannot say that Article 39 (b) has no application once the property is privately held." 

The bench emphasized that the validity of the Maharashtra law, which grants authorities the power to take over dilapidated buildings, constitutes a distinct matter and will be assessed separately.

The bench raised a critical question: Can it be argued that Article 39(b) loses its relevance once properties become privately owned, especially considering the societal imperative for welfare measures and the necessity for wealth redistribution?

The Chief Justice of India (CJI) invoked the historical context of the abolition of 'Zamindari' and the purely capitalist notion of property, highlighting how these instances contributed to a perception of "exclusiveness" surrounding property ownership.

"The socialist concept of property is the mirror image which attributes to property, a notion of commonality. Nothing is exclusive to the individual. All property is common to the community. That's the extreme socialist view," the CJI said, adding that the DPSPs have their foundation in the Gandhian ethos.

"And what is that ethos? Our ethos regards property as something which we hold in trust. We don't go as far as to adopt the socialistic model that there is no private property..."

"But, you know, our concept of property has undergone a very different, very subtle change from either the extreme capitalist perspective or the extreme socialist perspective," Justice DY Chandrachud said.

The bench further indicated its intent to address the issue concerning Article 31C, which provides immunity to laws aimed at upholding Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP). However, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opposed this observation, noting that it had not been specifically mentioned in the reference.

Tushar Mehta noted that while the issue of Article 31C hadn't been formally referred to the nine-judge bench, he was willing to offer assistance on the matter. The arguments were left unresolved and are set to continue on Thursday. Article 39(b) mandates the State to formulate policies ensuring that the ownership and control of community material resources are distributed in a manner that optimally serves the common good.

The bench heard a total of 16 petitions, with the lead petition submitted by the Mumbai-based POA. This primary plea was initially filed by the POA in 1992 and has undergone several referrals to larger benches, including ones comprising five and seven judges, before finally being directed to a nine-judge bench on February 20, 2002.