Unwarranted: 2 top court judges on Chief Justice’s remarks on Justice Krishna Iyer

Two Supreme Court judges on Tuesday disagreed with the strong observations made by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud on Justice VR Krishna Iyer in a verdict related to the acquisition of private properties.

Justices BV Nagarathna and Sudhanshu Dhulia stated that the comments were unwarranted and could have been avoided. In his judgment related to Article 39(b) on Tuesday, Justice Chandrachud, disagreed with the view expressed by former top court judge Justice Krishna Iyer in a 1978 case that private properties also fall within the “material resources of the community.” The CJI observed that Iyer had done a “disservice” to the broad and flexible spirit of the Constitution.

However, the judgment published on the Supreme Court’s website does not include the objectionable remarks.

Justice Nagarathna described the CJI’s observations as unwarranted and unjustified, while Justice Dhulia strongly disapproved of the remarks, calling the criticism harsh and unnecessary.

As per standard procedure, draft judgments are typically circulated among the members of a bench for their reference and to help formulate their opinions.

However, Justice Nagarathna agreed with the majority view of the eight-judge Constitution bench, which ruled that not every resource owned by private entities can be considered a material resource of the community to be utilised by the government for the common good.

CHIEF JUSTICE’S REMARK IN PROPOSED JUDGEMENT
Justice Nagarathna took specific objection to the following observation made by CJI Chandrachud in the proposed judgement: “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.”

But the final opinion published on the Supreme Court website quoting the CJI reads that the court must not tread into the domain of economic policy and does not contain the disservice remarks.

JUSTICE NAGARATHNA’S RESPONSE
Justice Nagarathna in her separate but concurring judgement objected to the CJI, observing that Justices Krishna Iyer and Chinnappa Reddy were influenced by a particular economic ideology and said that both the judges had consistently referred to the vision of the framers of the Constitution as the basis to advance their views.

“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,” Justice Nagarthana stated

Taking strong exception to the “disservice” remark, Justice Nagarathna said, “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,'” Justice Nagarathna said.

DISSENT BY JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA

Justice Dhulia, while endorsing the views expressed by Justices Iyer and Chinappa Reddy said, “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”.

Justice Dhulia added, “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.”