In a recent Supreme Court ruling, Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Sudhanshu Dhulia dissented against the majority on defining “material resources of the community” under Article 39(b) of the Indian Constitution. They championed the “Krishna Iyer Doctrine” advocating broader state control over resources for community welfare, emphasizing that interpretations should reflect historical contexts and serve the common good amidst ongoing economic inequalities in India.
New Delhi: In a pivotal recent Supreme Court verdict, Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Sudhanshu Dhulia voiced strong dissent against the majority’s interpretation of what constitutes “material resources of the community” under Article 39(b) of the Indian Constitution. This case highlights an ongoing debate surrounding the ownership and control of private property and whether it serves the common good.
Justice Nagarathna and Justice Dhulia’s dissent is rooted in their support for the “Krishna Iyer Doctrine”—a perspective championed by Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in the landmark 1977 case State of Karnataka v Shri Ranganatha Reddy, which was later endorsed in 1982 by Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy in Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. The doctrine advocates a broad interpretation of state powers to control resources, particularly to serve community welfare, emphasizing that privately owned resources can indeed be deemed “material resources of the community” under Article 39(b).
Justice Nagarathna: Context Matters
While agreeing with the majority view that not all private property constitutes “material resources of the community,” Justice Nagarathna sharply criticized their judgment for dismissing Justice Krishna Iyer’s approach. Justice Nagarathna found the majority’s view “unwarranted and unjustified,” pointing out that criticizing Iyer’s economic theory, which advocates for greater state control, ignored the broader constitutional spirit and context. She remarked that “the Krishna Iyer doctrine does a disservice to the broad and flexible spirit of the Constitution.”
Justice Nagarathna further elaborated on the importance of historical context, arguing that judicial perspectives from earlier times should be understood within the social and economic conditions prevalent during that period. She remarked,
“The paradigm shift in the economic policies of the State” post-1991 reforms cannot “result in branding the judges of this Court of the yesteryears as doing a disservice to the Constitution.”
According to Justice Nagarathna, judgments from past decades reflect the collective will of freedom fighters and the founders’ vision for an equitable society.
Justice Dhulia: Reinforcing the Krishna Iyer Doctrine
Justice Dhulia’s dissent not only endorsed the inclusive definition of “material resources of the community” given by Justices Krishna Iyer and O. Chinnappa Reddy, but he also emphasized that this interpretation remains relevant today. He noted,
“the broad and inclusive meaning given to this expression…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.”
Read Also: No Grounds, No Merit: Supreme Court Upholds Right to Travel for Sushant’s Former Aide
Dhulia argued that the majority’s restrictive view limits legislative power in determining what constitutes a material resource, and he warned against imposing an “exhaustive list” that would hamper legislative flexibility. He asserted that the directive principles enshrined in Articles 38 and 39 have little value if they are merely treated as “pious precepts” and should instead be actively upheld through law.
Invoking the aspirations of India’s freedom fighters and the Constituent Assembly debates, Justice Dhulia said that privately owned resources are undoubtedly part of the “material resources of the community” in Article 39(b). He underlined that it is up to the legislature to decide on the distribution of these resources, provided it is for the common good.
The Relevance of Article 38 and Article 39 in Today’s India
Justice Dhulia stressed that the inequality in income and wealth in India remains a significant issue, despite apparent economic growth and poverty reduction. He referenced Dr. Ambedkar’s warnings about persisting social and economic disparities, pointing out that political equality has been achieved, yet economic inequalities persist. Dhulia observed,
“The inequality in income and wealth and the growing gap between the rich and the poor is still enormous.”
Justice Dhulia emphasized the role of Articles 38 and 39 in bridging economic divides, arguing that the principles within these articles are fundamental to achieving a truly just society. He stated, “It will therefore not be prudent to abandon the principles on which Articles 38 and 39 are based,” underscoring that the philosophy behind these provisions is essential to India’s democratic and socialist ideals.
Balancing Judicial Interpretation with Legislative Wisdom
On the matter of privately owned resources falling within the ambit of “material resources of the community,” Justice Dhulia opined that not every private resource should automatically qualify. However, he maintained that decisions on ownership and control should prioritize the common good, leaving specific determinations to legislative bodies. He argued, “The key factor is whether such resources would subserve the common good.”
Dhulia reiterated that legislative wisdom must guide decisions on resource distribution and control, while the judiciary retains the power of review. This approach, he explained, ensures balance between judicial oversight and legislative discretion, supporting a framework where privately owned resources could be classified as community resources if deemed necessary for the common good.
Upholding the Legacy of Humanist Jurisprudence
Defending the humanistic ideals championed by Justices Krishna Iyer and Reddy, Justice Dhulia praised their judgments as rooted in fairness and empathy. Describing the “Krishna Iyer Doctrine” as a guiding light, he remarked, “The long body of their judgment is not just a reflection of their perspicacious intellect but more importantly of their empathy for the people.” He added that their approach emphasized the people at the heart of judicial philosophy, underscoring the doctrine’s enduring value.
In conclusion, the dissenting opinions of Justices Nagarathna and Dhulia reflect a defense of India’s constitutional values of equity and social justice. They assert that the interpretation of “material resources” should evolve with society while staying grounded in India’s foundational principles. This debate not only highlights the complexity of constitutional interpretation but also reinforces the importance of balancing historical legacies with contemporary economic realities.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES