CJI DY Chandrachud’s remarks on Krishna Iyer Doctrine spark controversy

Chief Justice of India 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 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 Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company case (1982) and Mafatlal Industries Ltd (1996).

Justice Nagarathna said the CJI’s observations were “unwarranted and unjustified” while Justice Dhulia termed it harsh and avoidable.

She wondered if the top court’s judgments which interpreted the Constitution to be compatible with the policies of the State then be considered to be “a disservice to the broad and flexible spirit of the Constitution” and the authors of the said judgments being critiqued today.

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.

“The Krishna Iyer Doctrine, or for that matter the O Chinnappa Reddy Doctrine, is familiar to all who have anything to do with law or life. It is based on strong humanist principles of fairness and equity. It is a doctrine which has illuminated our path in dark times. The long body of their judgment is not just a reflection of their perspicacious intellect but more importantly of their empathy for the people, as human beings, was at the centre of their judicial philosophy,” he said.