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

In their judgments in the Article 39(b) case, Justices BV Nagarathna and Sudhanshu Dhulia have expressed grave objections to the remarks against the Justice Krishna Iyer doctrine made by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud.

Justice Dhulia said that the criticism made on him was "harsh," "could have been avoided," but accepted and apologized for the controversy sparked by his comments regarding CJI Chandrachud and Justice Krishna Iyer.

A nine-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, along with justices Hrishikesh Roy, B.V. Nagarathna, Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, Satish Chandra Sharma and Augustine George Masih was deciding on the reference whether privately-owned resources are included in the expression of "material resources of the community" that the state is under obligation to distribute to promote the common good under Article 39(b) of the Constitution.

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

Justice Nagarathna, while holding that all resources- whether private or public-can be material resources of the community, recorded her objection to CJI's 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.

Also Read - Supreme Court Upholds Validity Of UP Madarsa Education Act Except Its Provisions Regulating Higher Education Degrees

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.

"Be that as it may, can we damn former judges and charge them with "disservice" only for arriving at a particular interpretive result 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?

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

The doctrinal fallacy of the Krishna Iyer approach is in assuming there should be an inflexi-ble economic dogma, where a much strong position of the state control vis-a-vis private resources constitutes a sole criterion of con­stitutional governace. a singular theory which held that acquisition of personal properties by the state as their ul­timate aim should bring down the very stratum and essence of the Constitution.

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

Justice Nagarathna explained her dissent in the following words:

"It is a cause of concern as to what the judicial brethren of posterity would say about the judgments of the brethren of yesteryear, perhaps blinding themselves to the time when the latter performed their duties and the socio-economic policies pursued by the State and that were part and parcel of the constitutional ethos prevalent at those times. Even because of the paradigm change in the economic policies pursued by the State towards globalisation and liberalisation and privatization, conveniently termed the "Reforms of 1991", which are going on unabated till date cannot lead to characterizing the Judges of this Court of erstwhile era "as doing a grave 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". This calls for no more than that this Court, in particular, and the Indian judiciary, in general, accept the obligation of meeting newer challenges of the times by picking and choosing only that part of the past wisdom which would be 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, endorsing the views of Justices Iyer and Chinappa Reddy, observed :

"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 known 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 merely an evidence to their perspicacious intellect but more importantly an expression of empathies of people since at the core of judicial thoughts they stood as a human being".

Editorial Note: The word 'disservice' in this sense cannot be seen in the textual final judgment delivered by Hon'ble Chief Justice CJI Chandrachud.

Case Facts: Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra (CA No.1012/2002) & Other Allied Cases

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 855