The Supreme Court’s landmark ruling on property rights and the interpretation of “material resources of the community” under Article 39 of the Constitution has not only given rise to an intense legal debate over the changing Indian economic landscape, but also revealed a deep division among the judges on the nine-judge bench.

While Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, in a majority opinion he wrote for himself and six other judges, criticized the earlier judgments for their economic and ideological biases, Justices BV Nagarathna and Sudhanshu Dhulia defended vehemently discusses the historical context of these decisions, characterizing the majority’s assessment as “unwarranted” and “harsh.”

The majority judgment affirmed that the earlier interpretations of Justices Krishna Iyer in State of Karnataka Vs Ranganatha Reddy (1977) and O Chinnappa Reddy in Sanjeev Coke (1982) – which included private property within the scope of “ material resources of the community » “- were imperfect.

In the Ranganatha Reddy case, a seven-judge bench considered the application of Section 39(b) in the context of nationalization of contract transportation. The majority opinion of four judges did not favor bringing private property under Section 39(b). However, the minority opinion expressed by Justice Iyer held otherwise. Justice Iyer said: “The material resources of the community in the context of the reorganization of the national economy encompass all national wealth, not just natural resources, all private and public sources for satisfying material needs, and not just public possessions… To exclude the ownership of private resources from the reels of Article 39 (b) is to encrypt its very objective of redistribution in the socialist way.

This minority view later became the basis of a five-judge decision in the Sanjeev Coke case, where the issue of Section 39(b) arose in the context of the nationalization of coke plants. Justice Reddy considered private property to be part of the material resources of the community.

Overturning these views, CJI Chandrachud wrote in his judgment that these earlier decisions supported specific economic ideologies which do not correspond to the flexible and broad economic aspirations of the Constitution. “A single economic theory, which considers the acquisition of private property by the state as the ultimate goal, would undermine the very fabric and principles of our constitutional framework,” he said.

Pointing out that such interpretations were influenced by a “particular school of economic thought”, the CJI suggested that they advocated an overly state-centric view of property acquisition, which could undermine the constitutional framework and aspirations to an economic democracy envisaged by the authors of the agreement. the Constitution. He believed that the judiciary should not dictate economic policy but rather focus on establishing a welfare state, adaptable to changing economic contexts, particularly post-1991 reforms.

“The doctrinal error of Krishna Iyer’s approach was to postulate a rigid economic theory, which advocates greater state control over private resources, as the exclusive basis of constitutional governance… To assert that the term ‘distribution’ cannot encompass the acquisition of a private resource would amount to committing the same error as Justice Krishna Iyer’s doctrine, namely establishing a preference in matters of economic and social policy,” said the majority verdict.

The CJI’s opinion referred to various observations made in these judgments. “In the Ranganatha Reddy case, Justice Krishna Iyer observed that Section 39(b) constitutes “a directive to the State with the deliberate aim of dismantling the feudal and capitalist citadels of property”. In the Bhim Singhji case, Justice Iyer cited Karl Marx in his judgment to observe that takeover of large land conglomerates is necessary to make Article 39 a constitutional reality,” this judgment said. Similarly, in the Sanjeev Coke case, reported by the CJI, Justice Reddy states that “the words and thought of Section 39(b) echo the colloquial language and philosophy of the social as expounded by all socialist writers.

“In essence, the interpretation of Section 39(b) adopted in these judgments is rooted in a particular economic ideology and the belief that an economic structure which prioritizes the acquisition of private property by the State is beneficial to the nation,” the CJI said. .

However, the CJI’s view was met with strong dissent from Justices Nagarathna and Dhulia.

Justice Nagarathna’s dissent highlighted the importance of historical context in interpreting past judgments, criticizing the majority’s characterization of past decisions as a “disservice to the Constitution.” The judge asserted that such a view does not take into account the socio-economic conditions in which these judgments were rendered.

“The mere paradigm shift in the economic policy of the State cannot lead to stigmatizing the judges of this erstwhile Court as doing disservice to the Constitution,” his judgment said. She stressed the importance of understanding past judgments in their socio-economic context, saying they were crafted in light of the challenges facing a newly independent nation. Justice Nagarathna emphasized that the evolving nature of economic policies should not lead to a rejection of previous judicial wisdom.

Furthermore, she noted the transformative impact of the Constitution over the decades and emphasized the continuity of principles from the past to the present. “The answer lies in this Court’s obligation… to meet the new challenges of our times by choosing only that part of past wisdom that is relevant to the present without decrying the judges of the past,” argued the judge.

“The comments about Krishna Iyer, J. are in my opinion unwarranted and unwarranted. It is worrying to know how the judicial brothers of posterity perceive the judgments of the brothers of the past, perhaps losing sight of the era in which the latter exercised their functions and the socio-economic policies carried out by the State. and was part of the constitutional culture of that era,” Justice Nagarathna said.

She added: “I say this, lest the judges of posterity follow the same practice. I say that the institution of the Supreme Court of India is bigger than the individual judges, who are only a part of it at different stages of the history of this great country! Therefore, I do not agree with the observations of the learned Chief Justice in the proposed judgment.

Writing a separate dissenting judgment, Justice Dhulia echoed Nagarathna’s sentiments, particularly in his defense of the so-called “Krishna Iyer doctrine”. He called the majority’s criticism of the doctrine harsh and unwarranted.

“The Krishna Iyer doctrine, or for that matter the O Chinnappa Reddy doctrine, is familiar to everyone who has anything to do with law or life. It is based on strong humanist principles of justice and equity. It is a doctrine that has lighted our path in dark times,” he said.

Justice Dhulia added: “The long body of their judgment is not only a reflection of their insightful intelligence, but, more importantly, of their empathy for the people, for the human being was at the center of their judicial philosophy . »

He argued that a broad interpretation of “community material resources,” including private resources, is crucial to addressing economic disparities. “The broad and inclusive meaning given to the expression “material resources of the community” by Justice Krishna Iyer and Justice O Chinnappa Reddy in Ranganatha Reddy and Sanjeev Coke respectively has served us well and has lost none of its relevance nor its jurisprudential value. , nor has he lost the public who appreciate these values,” Justice Dhulia said.

Approving the previous decisions of Justices Iyer and Reddy, Justice Dhulia held that even though there is political equality today as well as legal equality, social and economic inequalities continue.

“Inequalities in income and wealth and the growing gap between rich and poor remain enormous. It would therefore not be prudent to abandon the principles on which Articles 38 and 39 are based and on which the opinion of the three judges in the Ranganatha Reddy case and the unanimous verdict in the Sanjeev Coke case are based,” said the dissenting opinion of Judge Dhulia.