Explore the implications of the Krishna Iyer Committee Report amid Supreme Court judges’ controversial comments on its judgment.
In a rare and dramatic moment in India’s legal history, two judges on a nine-judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India have referred to the Chief Justice of India’s (CJI) alleged “harsh” criticism of the late Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer, in a proposed judgment. This reference has sparked a significant discussion about judicial conduct, the relationship between judges, and the legacy of one of India’s most influential legal minds.
The Context: The Nine-Judge Bench and the Judgment
The matter that brought this issue to the fore involved a nine-judge Bench convened by the Supreme Court to deliberate on complex legal and constitutional questions related to fundamental rights, the basic structure doctrine, and the role of the judiciary in upholding these principles. The nine-judge Bench was tasked with answering important questions that had far-reaching implications on constitutional law and the judicial framework of India.
However, during the course of the deliberations, two of the judges on the Bench referred to a proposed judgment in which the Chief Justice of India (CJI) had sharply criticized Justice Krishna Iyer in a manner that they described as “harsh” and inappropriate, particularly given Krishna Iyer’s towering legacy in Indian law.
The majority judgment pronounced by the Chief Justice, for himself and seven other members of the Bench, and published on the Supreme Court website on Tuesday (November 5, 2024), does not contain the “disservice” remark. The published judgment authored by the Chief Justice, however, referred to ”The Krishna Iyer Doctrine” with regard to laying down “a preference of economic and social policy”. The CJI, in his final opinion, said the court must not tread into the domain of economic policy.
Usually, draft opinions are circulated among the members of a Bench. It is rare for judges to quote from a “proposed” judgment.
Justice Nagarathna’s opinion said judges of posterity must not lose sight of the times in which past judges like Justice Iyer discharged their duties and the socio-economic policies that were pursued by the state in their time.
“Merely because of the paradigm shift in the economic policies of the state to globalisation, liberalisation and privatisation, compendiously called the ‘Reforms of 1991’, which continue to do so till date, cannot result in branding the judges of this court of the yesteryears ‘as doing a disservice to the Constitution’,” Justice Nagarathna wrote.
She said judges should not follow this practice of decrying past judges. The answer lay in meeting modern challenges by choosing only that part of the past wisdom apposite for the present without decrying those who served before them. “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! Therefore, I do not concur with the observations of the Chief Justice in the proposed judgment,” Justice Nagarathna categorically said.
The Legacy of Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer
Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer’s legacy as a judge who championed the cause of the poor, marginalized, and oppressed remains unquestionable. His contribution to constitutional law, especially his expansive reading of fundamental rights, has shaped modern legal thinking in India. His judgments on issues like right to education, prison reforms, and environmental rights have had a lasting impact on the lives of millions of Indians.
While he has always been seen as a symbol of progressive judicial activism, his approach was not without critics. The debate about judicial activism vs judicial restraint has been a long-standing issue in India’s legal history. Critics of judicial activism argue that it can sometimes lead to judicial overreach, where judges interpret the law in a way that may encroach on the domain of the legislature or executive.
Despite the criticism, Justice Iyer’s approach remains central to many ongoing debates about the role of the judiciary in India. His belief that the judiciary must serve as a social reformer and not merely an interpreter of laws has inspired generations of lawyers, judges, and legal scholars.
‘Fairness, equity’
Justice Dhulia, who authored the lone dissent on the Bench, referred to the criticism in the proposed judgment as “harsh, and could have been avoided”.
“The Krishna Iyer Doctrine, or for that matter the O. Chinnappa Reddy Doctrine, is familiar to all who have anything to do with law or life. It is based on strong humanist principles of fairness and equity. It is a doctrine which has illuminated our path in dark times,” Justice Dhulia reflected.
Justice Dhulia said judges like Justice Iyer were not only known for their intellect but, more importantly, for their empathy for the people, “as the human being was at the centre of their judicial philosophy”.
“In the words of Justice Krishna Iyer himself: “The courts too have a constituency — the nation — and a manifesto — the Constitution,” Justice Dhulia reminded.
Pingback: Anushka Sharma Shares Adorable Photo of Virat and Vamika