In a striking display of judicial discord, Justice BV Nagarathna of the Supreme Court on Tuesday openly criticized Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud for his remarks on former justices, including the venerable Justice VR Krishna Iyer. The controversy stems from a recent judgment regarding the state’s authority over private property, which Justice Nagarathna deemed disrespectful towards her judicial predecessors.
The nine-judge bench, led by CJI Chandrachud, concluded that private property cannot be uniformly deemed a “material resource of the community” as per Article 39(b) of the Constitution. While Justice Nagarathna agreed with the majority’s findings, she took issue with the CJI’s critical assessment of past judgments that diverged from this view.
Justice Nagarathna defended Justice Krishna Iyer’s historical decisions, which were influenced by the constitutional and economic contexts of their times, including the 42nd amendment that introduced the term ‘Socialist’ into the Constitution. She questioned the propriety of disparaging former judges based on contemporary standards, suggesting that such critiques could undermine the institution’s integrity.
“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,” Justice Nagarathna noted. She argued that it is unjust to castigate such judges for decisions that were apt for their era, even if those decisions might not align with current interpretations.
Justice Nagarathna further cautioned against future judges adopting a similar critical stance, emphasizing the importance of respecting the historical context of earlier rulings. “Judges of posterity should not follow the practice…I do not concur with the opinion of the CJI in this regard,” she stated.
The case concluded with three separate judgments. CJI Chandrachud led the majority opinion, supported by six other justices. Justice Nagarathna provided a partial concurrence, focusing on the historical respect due to former judges, while Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia dissented entirely.
