'Harsh, Unwarranted' : Justices Nagarathna & Dhulia Object To CJI Chandrachud's Remarks Against Justice Krishna Iyer

In their judgments in the case relating to Article 39(b), Justices BV Nagarathna and Sudhanshu Dhulia expressed strong objections to the remarks made by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud that the Justice Krishna Iyer doctrine did a "a disservice to the broad and flexible spirit of the Constitution.”

While Justice Nagarathna described CJI Chandrachud's comments on Justice Krishna Iyer as "unwarranted and unjustified", Justice Dhulia said that the criticism was "harsh", which "could have been avoided."

The 9-judge bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices Hrishikesh Roy, B.V. Nagarathna, Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, Satish Chandra Sharma and Augustine George Masih was deciding the reference on whether privately-owned resources fall within the scope of the term "material resources of community" which the State is obliged to distribute for common good as per Article 39(b) of the Constitution.

CJI Chandrachud, who penned the majority judgment, disagreed with the view expressed by Justice VR Krishna Iyer in State of Karnataka v. Ranganatha Reddy (1978) 1 SCR 641 that private properties also fall within the "material resources of the community." The majority judgment also held as erroneous the judgment of Justice O Chinnappa Reddy in Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Anr. (1983) 1 SCR 1000 which endorsed Justice Krishna Iyer's view.

Justice Nagarathna, while holding that all resources, whether private or public, can be material resources of the community, recorded her objection to his remarks on Justice Iyer. Justice Nagarathna objected to CJI Chandrachud observing that Justices Krishna Iyer and Chinnappa Reddy were influenced by a "particular economic ideology." She said that both the judges had consistently referred to the vision of the framers of the Constitution as the basis to advance their views.

Justice Nagarathna took specific objection to the following observation made by CJI Chandrachud :

"..the role of this Court is not to lay down economic policy, but to facilitate this intent of the framers to lay down the foundation for an “economic democracy”. The Krishna Iyer doctrine does a disservice to the broad and flexible spirit of the Constitution."

Observing that the broad interpretations of Justice Krishna Iyer must be seen in the backdrop of the social, economic and constitutional culture that prevailed then, Justice Nagarathan wondered whether former judges could be castigated for reaching a particular outcome.

"Regardless, on a conspectus understanding of all contributing factors such as the discussions in Constituent Assembly and the tide of the times that found in the broad house of economic democracy a legitimate State policy, can we castigate former judges and allege them with “disservice” only for reaching a particular interpretive outcome?".

Justice Nagarathna also termed as "unwarranted and unjustified" the following observation of CJI Chandrachud :

“the doctrinal error in the Krishna Iyer approach was, postulating a rigid economic theory, which advocates for greater state control over private resources, as the exclusive basis for constitutional governance. ... a single economic theory, which views the acquisition of private property by the state as the ultimate goal, would undermine the very fabric and principles of our constitutional framework.”

Can't tarnish judges of yesteryears based on shifts in present day's economic policies

Justice Nagarathna elaborated on her disagreement in the following words :

"It is a matter of concern as to how the judicial brethren of posterity view the judgments of the brethren of the past, possibly by losing sight of the times in which the latter discharged their duties and the socio-economic policies that were pursued by the State and formed part of the constitutional culture during those times. Merely because of the paradigm shift in the economic policies of the State to globalisation and liberalisation and privatisation, compendiously called the “Reforms of 1991”, which continue to do so till date, cannot result in branding the judges of this Court of the yesteryears “as doing a disservice to the Constitution”.

"I may say that such observations emanating from this Court in subsequent times creates a concavity in the manner of voicing opinions on judgments of the past and their authors by holding them doing a disservice to the Constitution of India and thereby implying that they may not have been true to their oath of office as a Judge of the Supreme Court of India.

Of course, no particular line of thinking is static and changes are brought about by the State by bearing in mind the exigencies of the times and global impact particularly on the Indian economy. Such attempts to create an environment suitable to the changing times have to be also appreciated by the judiciary, of course, by suitably interpreting the Constitution and the laws. But by there being a paradigm shift in the economy of this Country, akin to Perestroika in the erstwhile USSR, in my view, neither the judgments of the previous decades nor the judges who decided those cases can be said to have done a “disservice to the Constitution”. The answer lies in the obligation that this Court, in particular, and the Indian judiciary, in general, has in meeting the newer challenges of the times by choosing only that part of the past wisdom which is apposite for the present without decrying the past judges.

I say so, lest the judges of posterity ought not to follow the same practice. I say that the institution of the Supreme Court of India is greater than individual judges, who are only a part of it at different stages of history of this great Country! Therefore, I do not concur with the observations of the learned Chief Justice in the proposed judgment!"

Justice Dhulia, while endorsing the views expressed by Justices Iyer and Chinappa Reddy, stated :

"Before I conclude, I must also record here my strong disapproval on the remarks made on the Krishna Iyer Doctrine as it is called. This criticism is harsh, and could have been avoided.

The Krishna Iyer Doctrine, or for that matter the O. Chinnappa Reddy Doctrine, is familiar to all who have anything to do with law or life. It is based on strong humanist principles of fairness and equity. It is a doctrine which has illuminated our path in dark times. The long body of their judgment is not just a reflection of their perspicacious intellect but more importantly of their empathy for the people, as human being was at the centre of their judicial philosophy."

Case Details: Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra (CA No.1012/2002) & Other Connected Matters

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 855

Click here to read the judgment