A three-judge bench presided by CJI Chandrachud had reserved its judgment in the UP Madrasa matter on October 22. The Allahabad HC had declared it “unconstitutional”, saying it violated the principles of secularism. The Supreme Court on Tuesday will deliver its judgment on two issues — whether private property would fall within the definition of material resource of the community under Article 39(b) of the Constitution, and on appeals challenging the Allahabad High Court verdict holding the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madrasa Education Act 2004 “unconstitutional”. Reserving its verdict in the private property matter on May 1, a nine-judge Constitution bench presided by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud remarked that holding every private resource of an individual as part of the material resource of the community will be “far-fetched” and only scare away investors who may be wary of the level of protection they would get. The nine-judge bench, also comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy, B V Nagarathna, Sudhanshu Dhulia, J B Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, Satish Chandra Sharma and Augustine George Masih, was hearing a reference made to it. The reference arose in the context of the two views given by the judges in the 1978 decision in State Of Karnataka And Anr Etc vs Shri Ranganatha Reddy & Anr. The case dealt with the nationalisation of road transport services. One of the opinions by Justice V R Krishna Iyer was that material resources of the community would include both natural and man-made, publicly and privately owned resources. The other judgment authored by Justice N L Untwalia, however, said the majority of judges did not subscribe to the view taken in respect of Article 39(b) by Justice Iyer. Justice Iyer’s stand was further affirmed in the 1982 case Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd And Another. Article 39(b) in the Directive Principles of State Policy says that “the State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good”. Article 39(c) states that “the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment”. A three-judge bench presided by CJI Chandrachud had also reserved its judgment in the UP Madrasa matter on October 22. The Allahabad HC had declared it “unconstitutional”, saying it violated the principles of secularism. Expounding its stance, the Uttar Pradesh government told the bench, also comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, that it was of the view that the law is constitutional. It said that the Act need not have been struck down in entirety and only the offending provisions need to have been examined. The CJI also said “the state does have a vital interest even in ensuring standards in places of religious instruction. You interpret it that way. But to throw out the Act is to throw the baby out with the bathwater.” The SC also noted that some of the provisions of the 2004 Act, which empowers the Board to give degrees like Kamil, Fazil etc may be in conflict with the provisions of The University Grants Commission Act’, 1956 which says that only universities within the meaning of the Commission statute.