CJI Chandrachud's remarks against Justice Krishna Iyer's doctrine are deemed "Harsh, Unwarranted" by Justices Nagarathna and Dhulia.

Justices BV Nagarathna and Sudhanshu Dhulia strongly objected to Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud's comments criticizing the Justice Krishna Iyer theory in their rulings in the matter pertaining to Article 39(b).

CJI Chandrachud's remarks about Justice Krishna Iyer were deemed "unwarranted and unjustified" by Justice Nagarathna, but Justice Dhulia characterized the criticism as "harsh" and claimed it "could have been avoided."

The nine-judge panel, which included CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices Hrishikesh Roy, B.V. Nagarathna, Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, Satish Chandra Sharma, and Augustine George Masih, was deliberating whether privately held resources were covered by the clause "material resources of community" that the State is required to disperse for the common good under Article 39(b) of the Constitution.

The majority ruling's author, Chief Justice Chandrachud, disagreed with Justice VR Krishna Iyer's assertion in State of Karnataka v. Ranganatha Reddy (1978) 1 SCR 641 that private possessions are also considered "material resources of the community." In Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Anr. (1983) 1 SCR 1000, the majority ruling also declared Justice O Chinnappa Reddy's decision, which supported Justice Krishna Iyer's position, to be incorrect.

While maintaining that all resources, whether public or private, can be material assets of the community, Justice Nagarathna noted that she disagreed with the CJI's comments regarding Justice Iyer. Justice Nagarathna took issue with CJI Chandrachud's observation that Justices Chinnappa Reddy and Krishna Iyer were swayed by a "particular economic ideology." She added that both justices had continuously used the framers' understanding of the Constitution as a foundation for their arguments.

CJI Chandrachud made the following observation, which Justice Nagarathna specifically objected to:

The purpose of this Court is to support the framers' intention to establish the framework for a "economic democracy," not to establish economic policy. The wide and adaptable spirit of the Constitution is harmed by the Krishna Iyer theory.

Justice Nagarathan questioned whether earlier judges could be chastised for coming to a specific conclusion, noting that the broad interpretations of Justice Krishna Iyer must be viewed against the backdrop of the social, economic, and constitutional culture that was prevalent at the time.

"Regardless, on a conspectus understanding of all contributing factors such as the discussions in Constituent Assembly and the tide of the times that found in the broad house of economic democracy a legitimate State policy, can we castigate former judges and allege them with “disservice” only for reaching a particular interpretive outcome?" .

Justice Nagarathna further described the following CJI Chandrachud observation as "unwarranted and unjustified":

The Krishna Iyer method made the conceptual mistake of assuming that constitutional government could only be based on a strict economic theory that supports increased state control over private resources. A single economic theory that sees the state acquiring private property as the ultimate objective would compromise the fundamental tenets and structure of our constitutional system.

Ustice Nagarathna used the following phrases to further explain her disagreement:

"How the judicial brethren of the future perceive the rulings of their predecessors is a matter of concern, as they may be losing sight of the historical context in which the latter carried out their duties and the socioeconomic policies that the State pursued and that were a part of the constitutional culture at the time. The judges of this Court of the past cannot be accused of "doing a disservice to the Constitution" merely because of the paradigm shift in the State's economic policies toward globalization, liberalization, and privatization, collectively known as the "Reforms of 1991," which still have this effect today.

"In my opinion, this Court's subsequent remarks about past rulings and their authors create a void in the way people express their opinions about them by accusing them of violating the Indian Constitution and suggesting that they may not have upheld their oath of office as Supreme Court of India judges.

Naturally, no one school of thought is static, and the state implements changes by taking into account the demands of the times and the worldwide influence, especially on the Indian economy. The court must, of course, recognize these efforts to create a setting that is appropriate for the times by appropriately interpreting the laws and the Constitution. However, I believe that neither the rulings of the earlier decades nor the judges who rendered those decisions did a "disservice to the Constitution" because of the paradigm shift in this country's economy, which is comparable to Perestroika in the former USSR.

I say this because I don't want future judges to adopt the same habit. I believe that the Supreme Court of India is a bigger institution than any one judge, even if they have served in this magnificent nation at various points in time. As a result, I disagree with the learned Chief Justice's views in the proposed ruling.

In support of the opinions put out by Justices Iyer and Chinappa Reddy, Justice Dhulia said:

"I must also express my extreme dissatisfaction of the statements made regarding the so-called Krishna Iyer Doctrine before I wrap up. This is a severe critique that could have been prevented.

Everyone who has anything to do with law or life is familiar with the Krishna Iyer Doctrine, or the O. Chinnappa Reddy Doctrine, for that matter. It is founded on the humanist ideals of equity and justice. It is a philosophy that has helped us navigate through difficult times. Since human beings were at the core of their judicial philosophy, their extensive body of judgments not only reflects their astute intellect but also, and perhaps more crucially, their empathy for the people.

Editorial Note: The final draft of CJI Chandrachud's ruling does not include the "disservice" comment.