New Delhi | The majority judgement of the Supreme Court on Tuesday on the private properties issue criticised former apex court judge V R Krishna Iyer for "postulating a rigid economic theory" that advocated for greater state control over private resources as an exclusive basis for constitutional governance.
The remarks over the approach of Justice Iyer was made in the majority judgement penned by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud for himself and six other judges of the bench.
The CJI-led nine judge bench, by a majority 7:2, on Tuesday held all private properties cannot form part of 'material resources of the community' empowering states to take them over for distribution to serve "common good" under the Constitution.
"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," the CJI wrote in the 193-page judgement.
In 1977, in a case titled as state of Karnataka vs Shri Ranganatha Reddy, a seven-judge bench, by a 4:3 majority, had held that privately owned resources did not fall within the ambit of 'material resources of the community'.
However, Justice Iyer had dissented from the majority and held that the state can take over private resources for distribution to subserve common good. He expressed similar views in other judgments also.
The CJI, in his judgement, referred to the approach of Justice Iyer and said it postulated a rigid economic theory.
Justice Chandrachud referred to various observations of Justice Iyer in several judgements.
"To declare that Article 39(b) includes the distribution of all private resources amounts to endorsing a particular economic ideology and structure for our economy. Justice Krishna Iyer's judgement in Ranganatha Reddy, which was followed inter alia in Sanjeev Coke and Bhim Singhji, was influenced by a particular school of economic thought," the CJI said.
"For instance, in Ranganatha Reddy, Justice Krishna Iyer observed that Article 39(b) constitutes 'a directive to the State with a deliberate design to dismantle feudal and capitalist citadels of property'. In Bhim Singhji, Justice Krishna Iyer cited Karl Marx in his judgement to observe that taking over large conglomerations of land is necessary to make Article 39 a 'constitutional reality'," Justice Chandrachud said.
The CJI said interestingly, in the same decision, Justice Iyer also expressed his view about the nature of the economy and observed that our economy was 'in the transitional stage... undergoing a fabian transformation'.
"Significantly, both Justice Krishna Iyer (in Ranganatha Reddy and Bhimsinghji) and Justice Chinappa Reddy (in Sanjeev Coke) consistently referred to the vision of the framers (of the Constitution) as the basis to advance this economic ideology as the guiding principle of the provision. However, as noted earlier in his judgement, the vision of the framers while drafting the Constitution was not to lay down a particular form of social structure or economic policy for future governments," the majority judgement said.
The verdict referred to the debates in the Constituent Assembly and said B R Ambedkar was categoric in his constitutional vision and had rejected the prevalence of one dogma.
"The Constitution was framed in broad terms to allow succeeding governments to experiment with and adopt a structure for economic governance which would subserve the policies for which it owes accountability to the electorate. According to Dr Ambedkar, if the Constitution laid down a particular form of economic and social organisation, it would amount to taking away the liberty of people to decide the social organisation in which they wish to live...," the CJI said.
Justices BV Nagarathna and Sudhanshu Dhulia strongly disagreed with the views of the CJI on Justice Iyer.
Justice Iyer played an important role in an era of judicial activism and has written several landmark judgements.
New Delhi | Supreme Court judges B V Nagarathna and Sudhanshu Dhulia on Tuesday took exception to Chief Justice DY Chandrachud's remark during his judgement related to private properties that the Justice Krishna Iyer doctrine did a "disservice" to the broad and flexible spirit of the Constitution.
While Justice Nagarathna said the CJI's observations are unwarranted and unjustified, Justice Dhulia strong disapproved the remarks and said the criticism is harsh, and could have been avoided.
The nine-judge bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and justices Hrishikesh Roy, B V Nagarathna, Sudhanshu Dhulia, J B Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, Satish Chandra Sharma and Augustine George Masih pronounced the verdict.
The majority verdict pronounced by the CJI overruled Justice Iyer's previous ruling that all privately owned resources can be acquired by the State for distribution under Article 39(b) of the Constitution.
The CJI wrote for himself and six other judges on the bench which decided the vexed legal question on whether private properties can be considered "material resources of the community" under Article 39(b) and taken over by State authorities for distribution to subserve the "common good".
Justice Nagarathna partially disagreed with the majority judgement penned by the CJI, while Justice Dhulia dissented on all aspects.
In a separate 130-page verdict, Justice Nagarathna quoted Chandrachud saying, "Thus, 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."
Justice Nagarathna said merely because of the paradigm shift in the economic policies of the State, cannot result in labelling the former judges of this court as doing a "disservice" to the Constitution.
"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," Justice Nagarathna said.
Justice Dhulia said the Krishna Iyer Doctrine or O Chinnappa Reddy Doctrine is familiar to all who have anything to do with law or life and based on strong humanist principles of fairness and equity.
"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...
"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," Justice Dhulia wrote.
Justice Nagarathna, who is set to take over as India's first woman CJI in 2027, said such observations emanating from this court 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.
She said such observations imply that they may not have been true to their oath of office as a Judge of the Supreme Court.
"I may say that with passage of decades after the enforcement of the Constitution and on India becoming a Republic, the transformative impact of the Constitution has been deep and pervasive not only on governance in the country, whether at the central, state or local level but its impact on the Indian judiciary is also a significant aspect of Indian constitutional development.
"As a result, the basic features of the Constitution including the Preamble, Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles of State Policy, Separation of Powers, Judicial Review and Independence of the judiciary have impacted both governance as well as the judiciary," she wrote.
The top court judge said bearing in mind the goals of the constitution, it is the obligation on the part of this court to consider the correctness of such legislation in light of the vision of the framers of the Constitution as well as the transformative nature of the Indian Constitution and the intent of the policy makers and the law.
"It is in the above background that the Judges of this court have been deciding constitutional issues over the decades. 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, 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," Justice Nagarathna said.