Justice BV Nagarathna objects to CJI 'castigating' Justice Krishna Iyer in community resources verdict

Justice BV Nagarathna of the Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed strong reservations over Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud criticising former Supreme Court judges, including Justice VR Krishna Iyer, for their views on whether private property can be taken over by the State to subserve the common good.

In doing so, Justice Nagarathna emphasised,

"I say that the institution of the Supreme Court of India is greater than individual judges who are only a part of it at different stages of history of this great country."

The majority (including Justice Nagarathna) on a nine-judge Bench led by the CJI today held that all private properties can't be be considered "material resources of the community" under Article 39(b) of the Constitution.

Justice Nagarathna said that while she partially concurred with the majority on this view, she did not agree with the CJI's comments on past judges who took a different view.

"Justice Krishna Iyer adjudicated on material resources of a community in the backdrop of a constitutional and economic structure which gave primacy to the state in a broad sweeping manner. As a matter of fact the 42nd amendment had included 'Socialist' in the Constitution. Can we castigate former judges and allege them with disservice only because of reaching a different interpretative outcome?" Justice Nagarathna asked.

Justice Nagarathna went on to note that one cannot lose sight of the fact that past judges may have delivered rulings that were more fitting to the circumstances of the time.

Merely because there has been a paradigm shift since then, it would not be appropriate to castigate former judges and say that they did "a disservice to the Constitution" for taking a view that may not be appropriate today but may have been relevant in the past, she said.

She strongly objected to the CJI's criticism of former judges' rulings in this manner and commented that such a practice must not be followed by judges in future.

"At the outset, I may say that such observations emanating from this Court and calling that they were not true to their oath of office...but just by having a paradigm shift in economic policies...Judges cannot be called to having done disservice to the Constitution. Judges of posterity should not follow the practice...I do not concur with the opinion of the CJI in this regard."

A total of three judgments have been written in the case - with CJI Chandrachud leading the majority with six other judges - Justices Hrishikesh Roy, JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, Satish Chandra Sharma and Augustine George Masih. 

Justice BV Nagarathna partially concurred, while Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia dissented.

Read more on the verdict here.

[Read Live Coverage]