Today, On 5th November, Justice B.V. Nagarathna expressed her objections to Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud’s criticism of Justice Krishna Iyer in the community resources ruling. She emphasized that the institution of the Supreme Court of India surpasses individual judges, who are merely part of it throughout different historical periods.
New Delhi: Justice B.V. Nagarathna of the Supreme Court, On Tuesday, voiced her strong objections to Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud’s criticism of former Supreme Court judges, including Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, regarding their perspectives on whether private property can be acquired by the State for the common good.
Justice B.V. Nagarathna emphasized today that judges should refrain from criticizing their predecessors simply because they arrived at different conclusions in their rulings. This statement came as the Supreme Court clarified that not all privately owned properties can be considered community resources eligible for State appropriation for public benefit.
In her remarks, Justice Nagarathna emphasized,
“I assert that the institution of the Supreme Court of India is greater than individual judges, who are merely part of it at various stages in the history of this great country.”
This significant ruling issued by a nine-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, which included Justices Hrishikesh Roy, B.V. Nagarathna, Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, Satish Chandra Sharma, and Augustine George Masih. The decision was reached with an 8-1 majority.
One notable case referenced during the proceedings was the 1977 decision in the State of Karnataka vs. Ranganath Reddy, which dealt with the nationalization of private transport companies and the scope of State intervention in private enterprises. This issue arose when the Karnataka government attempted to nationalize private bus services, leading to a ruling by a seven-judge bench that resulted in a narrow 4-3 majority.
Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, one of the dissenting judges, argued that both public and private resources should be considered “material resources of the community” under Article 39(b) of the Constitution.
He stated,
“We have been guided by the thought that an all-too-large gap between the law and public needs, arising out of narrow notions, must be bridged by broadening the constitutional concepts to suit the changing social consciousness of the emerging Welfare State. Institutional crises and confrontations can be and should be avoided by evolving a progressive interpretation, discarding over-sensitivity to under-valuation when private property is taken for public good.”
In delivering the ruling today, Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud addressed the question of whether “material resources of a community” under Article 39(b) includes privately owned resources.
He noted,
“Theoretically, the answer is yes, the phrase may include privately owned resources. However, this court is unable to subscribe to the minority view of Justice Iyer in Ranganath Reddy. We hold that not every resource owned by an individual can be considered a material resource of a community only because it meets the qualifier of material needs.”
The Chief Justice also highlighted that Justice Iyer’s judgment referenced Karl Marx, indicating that it was based on the economic ideology that private property could be utilized by the state for the welfare of the public.
Pointing out that the country has transitioned from a socialist model to a more liberal economic framework, He remarked,
“The role of this court is not to lay down economic policy but to facilitate the establishment of economic democracy,”
In response, Justice Nagarathna emphasized that Justice Iyer’s perspective on community resources was delivered against a backdrop of constitutional and economic structures that prioritized the State.
She asked,
“As a matter of fact, the 42nd Amendment included ‘socialist’ in the Constitution. Can we castigate former judges and allege they have done a disservice simply for reaching a different interpretative outcome?”
She expressed concern over judges viewing past rulings without considering the socio-economic context of their time, stating,
“Merely because there has been a paradigm shift following the 1991 reforms, it does not warrant branding past judges as having done a disservice to the Constitution.”
Justice Nagarathna concluded,
“At the outset, I must express that such remarks from this Court, suggesting that past judges were not true to their oath of office, are unwarranted. Just because there has been a paradigm shift in economic policies does not mean judges should be labelled as having done a disservice to the Constitution. Future judges should refrain from following such practices… I do not concur with the Chief Justice’s opinion in this regard.”
However, she agreed with the majority judgment, advocating for a “flexible interpretation” of the Constitution as times change.
She strongly opposed the Chief Justice’s criticism of the rulings made by former judges, stating that such behaviour should not be emulated by future judges.
A total of three judgments were rendered in this case, with CJI Chandrachud leading the majority alongside six other judges Justices Hrishikesh Roy, J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, Satish Chandra Sharma, and Augustine George Masih.
Justice B.V. Nagarathna partially concurred, while Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia dissented.