In an unusual and significant divergence within the Supreme Court, Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Sudhanshu Dhulia voiced strong objections to Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud’s critical remarks on the “Krishna Iyer Doctrine” in a landmark judgment interpreting Article 39(b) of the Constitution. This doctrine, named after the late Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, emphasizes the need for equitable distribution of resources and a compassionate approach in judicial interpretations.

The rift surfaced in the recent ruling of a 9-judge bench on the contentious question of whether privately-owned resources can be considered “material resources of the community” under Article 39(b), which mandates the state to ensure fair distribution of such resources for the common good. While CJI Chandrachud led the majority opinion against this interpretation, Justices Nagarathna and Dhulia staunchly defended the principles underpinning the Krishna Iyer Doctrine, calling CJI Chandrachud’s comments “harsh” and “unwarranted.”

Dissecting the Debate

Justice Nagarathna, dissenting sharply, argued that the CJI’s criticism of Justice Krishna Iyer’s economic approach as “rigid” and detrimental to the Constitution was unfair. She emphasized that past judges like Krishna Iyer and O. Chinnappa Reddy were products of their times, deeply influenced by the socio-economic policies that shaped India post-independence. For her, casting aspersions on their judgments disregards the context in which these judges worked and the vision of the Constitution’s framers.

Reflecting on the changing economic landscape, Justice Nagarathna expressed concerns about judging past doctrines through the lens of present-day liberalization and privatization policies. In her view, the global economic shifts since the 1990s should not tarnish the legacy of judicial giants who upheld state-led growth and social equity during earlier decades.

She questioned, “Can we criticize former judges as having done a ‘disservice’ simply because they adhered to a particular interpretation? Such remarks risk creating a discordant environment where respect for past rulings erodes, potentially undermining the institution itself.”

Justice Dhulia’s Take: The Doctrine’s “Humanist” Roots

Justice Dhulia echoed Nagarathna’s reservations, stating that the Krishna Iyer Doctrine is “based on strong humanist principles of fairness and equity.” He viewed it as a guiding light for judicial compassion and empathy, integral to preserving fairness in an evolving society.

According to him, CJI Chandrachud’s criticism could be seen as overly “harsh” and avoidable. Dhulia’s perspective underscores the delicate balance that courts must maintain in respecting historical judicial philosophies while adapting to contemporary realities.

Larger Questions on Constitutional Interpretation

This internal conflict raises broader questions about the judiciary’s role in interpreting economic policies and societal changes. If the judiciary’s interpretations are too closely tied to prevailing economic ideologies, does this risk compromising the fundamental values of the Constitution?

Should the courts, as CJI Chandrachud argues, refrain from “laying down economic policy” and instead focus on ensuring that the state aligns with democratic principles? Or should they, as Justices Nagarathna and Dhulia suggest, honor doctrines rooted in empathy, even if they challenge current economic trends?

Implications for Judicial Legacy and the Court’s Future

This debate is a rare instance of open disagreement on constitutional philosophy among top judges. It prompts the question: Could such judicial rifts influence future cases involving social and economic rights? Additionally, what does this divergence mean for judicial cohesion and the court’s institutional integrity?

The Krishna Iyer Doctrine has historically provided a voice for the marginalized and upheld principles of social justice. Will this recent judgment dilute its significance, or will it prompt a reevaluation of the doctrine’s relevance in modern India?

As India continues to grapple with economic inequalities and privatization, this judgment serves as a critical reminder of the judiciary’s profound impact on shaping the nation’s socio-economic landscape. Whether the court will continue to embrace past doctrines of social justice or redefine them under newer economic policies remains a question that may shape Indian jurisprudence for years to come.