This is neither appropriate nor desirable… Justice Nagarathna expressed disagreement with CJI Chandrachud’s remarks, know what he/she said

New Delhi: Justice B in Supreme Court. V. Nagarathna told Chief Justice D.Y. Objection has been raised to Chandrachud’s remarks on the principle of Justice Krishna Iyer. The case concerns the interpretation of Article 39(b). Justice Nagarathna said that the Chief Justice’s comments were neither appropriate nor desirable. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia also dissented from the majority judgment criticizing Justice Iyer’s Marxist interpretation.

Justice Nagarathna expressed disagreement

In an important case in the Supreme Court regarding the interpretation of Article 39(B), Justice B. V. Nagarathna told Chief Justice D.Y. Expressed disagreement with the remarks made by Chandrachud on the principle of Justice Krishna Iyer. In 1978, in the Ranganatha Reddy case, Justice Krishna Iyer gave a minority view on this article. Later in 1982, in the Sanjeev Kok case, a five-judge bench adopted the same minority view of Justice Iyer. In this bench, Justice Nagarathna’s father Justice E.S. Venkataramaiah, who became the Chief Justice of India in 1989.

Recently, a seven-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Chandrachud reviewed the judgments delivered in the Ranganatha Reddy and Sanjeev Kok cases. In his/her judgment, Chief Justice Chandrachud said that the majority judgment in the Ranganatha Reddy case had distinguished itself from the observations made by Justice Krishna Iyer (speaking on behalf of the minority judges) on the interpretation of Article 39(b). Thus, in Sanjeev Kok, a similar bench of this Court violated judicial discipline and erred in relying on the minority opinion.

‘It is neither appropriate nor desirable’

Justice Nagarathna has objected to this comment of Chief Justice Chandrachud. he/she said that the judgment in the cases of Ranganath Reddy, Sanjeev Kok, Abu Kawoor Bai and Basantibai correctly decided the issues arising for consideration and did not require any interference on their merits. As mentioned above. The observations of the judges in those judgments will not require any criticism at the present time. This is neither appropriate nor desirable.

Justice Nagarathna further questioned whether the principles of liberalisation, privatization and globalization adopted in India since 1991, the reforms in the economy and the structural changes brought about in the last three decades, were compatible with the social reforms adopted in the decades immediately after India’s independence. -Can hold a mirror up against economic policies? Can we punish former judges for reaching a particular interpretive result?

Justice Nagarathna further said that it is a matter of concern how the judicial brothers of the future look at the decisions of the brothers of the past, possibly forgetting the time when they discharged their duties and the social norms adopted by the State during that time. -Economic policies and became part of constitutional culture.