Even while agreeing with the majority view that all private property would not constitute material resource of the community under Article 39(b) of the Constitution, Justice B V Nagarathna, in a separate judgment, took exception to the criticism of Justice V R Krishna Iyer’s interpretation of the law in the 1977 judgment in State of Karnataka v Shri Ranganatha Reddy. Incidentally, Justice Iyer’s view was subsequently endorsed by Justice O Chinnappa Reddy in the 1982 decision in the case Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia who delivered a dissenting judgment, too, recorded his “strong disapproval on the remarks made on the Krishna Iyer Doctrine as it is called” and said “this criticism is harsh, and could have been avoided”. Justice Nagarathna termed it as “unwarranted and unjustified”, the majority view that “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.” She went on to express her disillusionment over what she said was the majority’s view that “the Krishna Iyer doctrine does a disservice to the broad and flexible spirit of the Constitution.” Incidentally, the final version of the majority opinion available on the SC website, however, does not have the sentence: “the Krishna Iyer doctrine does a disservice to the broad and flexible spirit of the Constitution.” Underlining the salience of context, Justice Nagarathna said that “it is a matter of concern as to how the judicial brethren of posterity view the judgments of the brethren of the past, possibly by losing sight of the times in which the latter discharged their duties.” She said that “the paradigm shift in the economic policies of the State” in the wake of the 1991 reforms, cannot “result in branding the judges of this Court of the yesteryears ‘as doing a disservice to the Constitution’.” She sought to underline that the views of Justices Iyer and Reddy need to be seen in the light of the social and economic conditions prevalent at the time of the country’s independence and their subsequent evolution. In his dissent, Justice Dhulia disagreed with the majority view on what constitutes “material resources of the community” saying that “the broad and inclusive meaning given to this expression by Justice Krishna Iyer and Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy…has stood us in good stead and has lost none of its relevance, or jurisprudential value, nor has it lost the audience which appreciates these values”. Justice Dhulia said that the majority view that not all privately owned resources are material resources of the community, “limits the hands of the legislature to a non-exhaustive list of factors to determine which resources can be considered as material resources,” and, “there is no need for this pre-emptive determination.” The dissenting verdict said that directive principles have no meaning if they remain as a “pious precept,” and must be enforced through law. “When and how it is done will depend on our Parliament and State legislatures as it is in their domain, but do they must, for these are fundamental for the governance of the country,” said Justice Dhulia. Invoking the “aims and objects of our freedom fighters, their vision for a just and equitable society,” and the debates in the Constituent Assembly, Justice Dhulia said that these “leave us with no doubt that privately owned resources are a part of ‘material resources of the community,’ as given in Article 39(b).” He added that it is for the legislature to decide how the ownership and control of material resources is to be distributed in order to subserve the common good. ”If it does not, then such a legislation can be struck down as the Judiciary is not deprived of its powers of judicial review,” Justice Dhulia said. On the majority view’s criticism of Justices Iyer and Reddy, the dissenting verdict said that the “Krishna Iyer Doctrine, or for that matter the O. Chinnappa Reddy Doctrine,” is based on strong “humanist principles of fairness and equity.” Calling it a doctrine which has illuminated our path in dark times, the judge said: “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 being was at the centre of their judicial philosophy.”
