Justices BV Nagarathna and Sudhanshu Dhulia took exception to the criticism of Justice Krishna Iyer in the majority opinion of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court that ruled that not all private property would constitute material resource of the community under Article 39(b).
Justice Nagarathna, while voting with the majority view in the case, gave a separate judgement in which she termed as “unwarranted and unjustified” the criticism of Justice Krishna Iyer’s interpretation of the law in the 1977 judgement in State of Karnataka vs Shri Ranganatha Reddy.
Also Read: CJI criticises ex-SC judge Krishna Iyer for postulating ‘rigid economic theory’
Justice O Chinnappa Reddy endorsed Justice Iyer’s view in his 1982 judgement in the Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. case.
Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, in his dissenting judgement, also recorded his “strong disapproval of the remarks made on the Krishna Iyer doctrine as it is called”, and said “this criticism is harsh, and could have been avoided”.
Importance of context: Justice Nagarathna
Justice Nagarathna emphasised the importance of context, and said the views of Justices Krishna Iyer and Chinnappa Reddy need to be seen in the light of the prevailing economic and social conditions at the time of our country’s independence and their subsequent evolution.
Also Read: CJI’s remark on Krishna Iyer unwarranted, could have been avoided: Justices Nagarathna, Dhulia
She said in her judgement, “It is a matter of concern as to how the judicial brethren of posterity view the judgements of the brethren of the past, possibly by losing sight of the times in which the latter discharged their duties.”
Justice Dhulia’s dissenting judgement
Justice Dhulia in his judgement disagreed with the majority view on what constitutes “material resources of the community”, and said that “the broad and inclusive meaning given to this expression by Justice Krishna Iyer and Justice O Chinnappa Reddy … has stood us in good stead and has lost none of its relevance, or jurisprudential value, nor has it lost the audience which appreciates these values.”
He wrote that the Krishna Iyer Doctrine is based on strong humanist principles of fairness and equity.
Also Read: State cannot take over all private property, says Supreme Court
“The long body of their judgement is not just a reflection of their perspicacious intellect but more importantly of their empathy for the people, as the human being was at the centre of their judicial philosophy,” wrote Justice Dhulia in his dissenting judgement.
Incidentally, the final version of the majority opinion that is posted on the SC website does not have the sentence, “the Krishna Iyer doctrine does a disservice to the broad and flexible spirit of the Constitution”.
Comments are closed.