NEW DELHI: CJI DY Chandrachud’s remarks on legendary former Supreme Court judge VR Krishna Iyer that his doctrine did a “disservice” to the broad and flexible spirit of the Constitution has invited criticism from Supreme Court judges BV Nagarathna and Sudhanshu Dhulia.
While pronouncing the majority verdict on interpretation of Article 39(b) of the Constitution to decide if private properties can be considered “material resources of the community” and taken over by the state to subserve the “common good”, the CJI noted that the interpretation of Article 39(b) adopted by Justice Iyer was rooted in a particular economic ideology and the belief that an economic structure which prioritises the acquisition of private property by the state is beneficial for the nation.
“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 said, overruling his verdict in Shri Ranganatha Reddy case (1978), which was affirmed by subsequent verdicts in 1982 and 1996. Justice Nagarathna said the CJI’s observations were “unwarranted and unjustified” while Justice Dhulia termed these harsh and avoidable. Justice Dhulia wrote, “Before I conclude, I must also record here my strong disapproval of the remarks made on the Krishna Iyer doctrine as it is called. This criticism is harsh, and could have been avoided.