Mumbai:

Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna on Saturday said not all disputes are suited for courtrooms and litigations, and asserted that mediation is the mode for redressal as it offers creative solutions and strengthens relationships. Speaking at the third convocation ceremony of the Maharashtra National Law University (MNLU) in Nagpur, he said each case has to be seen not from the eyes of legal issues but as a human story.

Indian legal aid structure is perhaps the most robust in the world where assistance is given to all the stakeholders, he noted.

“Not all disputes are suited for courtrooms, litigation or even arbitration. Mediation is the mode for redressal that offers us more than just dispute resolution,” the CJI said.

It opens doors to creative solutions beyond simple yes or no answers, he said.

By choosing this path, we not only resolve conflicts efficiently, but also strengthen relationships between people and businesses, he said.

CJI Khanna added that lawyers are the problem solvers who have to come up with creative solutions that address both the legal and human dimensions of the problem.

“Just as problems cannot be fixed into boxes, neither can their solutions. As our problems keep becoming more dynamic, the need for their solutions has to be more flexible. The road to justice itself cannot be a hurdle to achieve it,” he said.

The CJI urged everyone to think beyond the convention and broaden their horizons to make justice delivery cost-effective and time-bound.

He said the generation today faces challenges that our predecessors hardly imagined, like climate change that threatens not only our environment but the very fabric of human rights and social justice, and digital evolution that raises unprecedented questions about privacy, security and nature of human interaction.

Democracy is itself being reshaped by new technologies and social dynamics, the CJI said.

“These aren’t just abstract problems. They are very fundamental challenges to humanity, human dignity and liberty that require innovative solutions,” he said.

The Indian legal aid structure is perhaps the most robust in the world where assistance is given to all the stakeholders – the accused and the victims, he said.

Combination of a robust legal aid framework and the energy of young lawyers has the potential to make India a world leader in accessibility, the Chief Justice said.

Also speaking at the event, Supreme Court judge Justice B R Gavai, also the Chancellor of the MNLU, expressed gratitude for the support extended by the state government to establish the university.

“I must place on record my appreciation for the valuable assistance provided by Devendra Fadnavis, the then Chief Minister of Maharashtra and also the present as well as Uddhav Thackeray, who was also the chief minister of Maharashtra,” Justice Gavai said.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Recently, an ideological dialogue happened in the Indian Supreme Court on Article 39(b) of the Constitution. The judgment by a nine-judge Bench in Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra last Tuesday reflects a division of opinion on the topic, though the majority on the Bench laid down the law.

Constitutional socialism, like political socialism, has remained a controversial issue in the Indian juridical discourse. Article 39(b) of the Constitution, together with other provisions under the directive principles in part IV of the Constitution, embodies an idea of constitutional socialism. This, however, is a contested argument. To understand the legal and political ramifications of the verdict, let us now examine the crux of the judgment.

The Fundamentality Of Directive Principles

The Court in the current case broadly did two things. First, it said that the annulment of certain amendments made to Article 31-C of the Constitution would not nullify Article 31-C in the unamended form. This is the Article that gives immunity to certain laws from judicial review if the laws are made to further the directive principles of state policy stated in the Constitution. The Article says that such laws cannot be assailed on grounds of violation of the equality clause (Article 14) or the freedom clause (Article 19) in the Constitution. This signifies the fundamentality of directive principles in the process of governance, which are otherwise not enforceable. This takes us to the second and the more vital part of the judgment. The majority held that the interpretation given to Article 39(b) of the Constitution by Justice Krishna Iyer in a minority judgment in 1977 in Ranganatha Reddy endorsed by the five-judge Bench in Sanjeev Coke (1982) was not good law on Article 39(b). Thus, the Court overturned the precedential materials in the Article that gave an expanded connotation to this constitutional provision.

Article 39(b) says that the State shall strive for policy to secure that “the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good”. In a minority judgment in State of Karnataka v. Ranganatha Reddy (1977) Justice Krishna Iyer analysed the Article and said that all individual wealth is part of the community’s wealth and therefore, private property is well within the ambit of “material resources of the community”. He said that “material resources of the community in the context of re-ordering the national economy embraces all the national wealth, not merely natural resources, all the private and public sources of meeting material needs, not merely public possessions”. He added that “to exclude ownership of private resources from the coils of Article 39(b) is to cipherise its very purpose of redistribution the socialist way”. This minority verdict in Ranganatha Reddy was endorsed by a five-judge Bench in Sanjeev Coke. Thus, the minority verdict [which essentially has not expressly disagreed on the point of Article 39(b)] got an authoritative endorsement in Sanjeev Coke. This interpretation was validated in a series of judgments that followed Sanjeev Coke. Thus, the ”Krishna Iyer doctrine”, as CJI Chandrachud calls it, got judicially reaffirmed.

What Ambedkar Said 

It is this constitutional landscape that is now thoroughly altered by the majority judgment in the Property Owners Association case. According to CJI Chandrachud, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar did not perceive the Article in the way Krishna Iyer did. Relying on the reply given by Dr Ambedkar to Prof. K.T. Shah in the Constituent Assembly, Justice Chandrachud said that the Court is unable to subscribe to “the expensive view” of Justice Iyer. He wrote: ”…(T)his Court must not tread into the domain of economic policy, or endorse a particular economic ideology while undertaking constitutional interpretation”.

The counter view on Article 39(b) is well reflected in Justice Dhulia’s minority view. He endorses Krishna Iyer’s approach on the ground that the Constitution in general and the directive principles [including Article 39(b)] are essentially socialist in their tone and tenor. Curiously again, Justice Dhulia relies on Dr Ambedkar’s reply (relied on by Chandrachud) to say quite the opposite of what Justice Chandrachud said. According to him, the very scheme of the directive principles reflected the idea of constitutional socialism. He also relied on Ambedkar’s famous speech in the Constituent Assembly on November 25, 1949, underscoring the absence of socio-economic equality in the country. He also put forward a blunt commonsensical reading of the Article, saying that for utilising public assets for public good, no constitutional provision is required, and the very purpose of Article 39(b) is to empower the state to ensure public good by resorting to privately owned resources. He said public property will be used for public good only, even if it is not contemplated in the directive principles. Criticism of the ‘Krishna Iyer doctrine’ by Chief Justice Chandrachud is not endorsed by Justice Nagarathna either, though the judge agreed substantially with the majority judgment.

Law, Politics, And The ‘Iyer Doctrine’ 

It is necessary to understand the constitutional, political and economic context in which the ‘Iyer doctrine’ evolved. The era of Land Reforms Acts by different states, laws for abolition of the Zamindari system and privy purses, and nationalisation of private banks were all developments that facilitated a political climate of Nehruvian socialism that paved the way to the Krishna Iyer doctrine. Laws are essentially political statements made by the regime of the day. The preambular addition of the word “socialist” did not indicate anything new but only restated the socialist inclination of the Constitution, which was otherwise clear, as elaborated by Justice Dhulia in the present minority verdict.

The present judgment also held that Article 31-C in the unamended form will hold good. Certain additions to this Article made by way of the 42nd amendment in 1977 were struck down in the Minerva Mills Case (1980). The curious aspect, however, is that the Centre argued in favour of the State’s power to treat private properties as “material resources of the community”, relying on Krishna Iyer’s doctrine. This argument was repelled by the majority on the Bench. In an era of privatisation of public properties, this gesture may appear to be a bit ironic.

At any rate, the present regime at the Centre is not a proponent of Nehruvian socialism. Political and ideological shifts play a big role in determining what the Constitution means, what it says and how it is invoked. The distance that the nation has travelled since 1977 is reflected in the Property Owners Association case and the dissent in the judgment shows the other side of the coin. The judgment will carry forward the eternal discourse on the socialist traits in the country’s Constitution. The juridical discourse on the topic underlines the quality of deliberative democracy within the system of judiciary.

(Kaleeswaram Raj is a lawyer at the Supreme Court of India)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

New Delhi:

Senior Supreme Court judge Justice Sanjiv Khanna will take oath as the 51st Chief Justice of India on November 11, but his parents wanted him to be a Charted Accountant. They believed a legal career was full of challenges and hardship, sources close to him said. But Sanjeev Khanna chose to embrace the law, inspired by his uncle, Supreme Court’s Justice HR Khanna.

“He always considered his uncle an ideal and used to keenly follow his work,” sources told NDTV. And that involved not only the law. “Justice HR Khanna used to polish not only his shoes but also that of other family members. He used to wash his own clothes as well,” sources said.

Sanjiv Khanna has preserved all the copies of Justice HR Khanna’s judgments, notes, registers, sources said. He wants to donate them to the top court’s library once he demits office.

In 2019, Justice Sanjiv Khanna spent his first day as a Supreme Court judge in the same court room where his uncle worked. Justice HR Khanna’s portrait is there in the room, but Sanjiv Khanna never got his photo clicked there. He would do so before he retires, sources said. Sanjiv Khanna is expected to demit office on 13 May 2025. 

Justice Sanjeev Khanna’s mother Saroj Khanna was a lecturer at Lady Shri Ram College. His father Devraj Khanna was a lawyer who later became a judge of the Delhi High Court. 

Justice HR Khanna was part of the bench that gave a unanimous decision in the “habeas corpus case” of ADM, Jabalpur vs Shivkant Shukla, in 1976. 

When Indira Gandhi’s government appointed Justice MH Beg as the top judge of the country in January 1977, Justice HK Khanna had resigned. 

 

A view of Supreme Court of India. File
| Photo Credit: The Hindu

The Supreme Court on July 15 agreed to consider a submission for setting up a constitution Bench to hear pleas challenging the validity of passage of laws such as the Aadhaar Act as Money Bills allegedly to bypass the Rajya Sabha.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) D. Y. Chandrachud and justices J. B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was urged by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who also heads the Supreme Court Bar Association, that the pleadings are complete and the petitions needed to be listed for hearing. “I will take the call when I form the constitution Benches,” the CJI said.

Earlier, the top court had said it would constitute a seven-judge Bench to consider the issue of validity of passage of laws such as the Aadhaar Act as a Money Bill.

The decision was aimed at addressing the controversy around Money Bills after the government introduced legislations such as the Aadhaar Act and even amendments to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) as Money Bills, apparently to circumvent the Rajya Sabha where it did not have a majority then.

A Money Bill is a piece of legislation which can be introduced only in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha cannot amend or reject it. The Upper House can only make recommendations which may or may not be accepted by the Lower House.

New Delhi:

The Supreme Court on Monday advised caution to a clutch of petitioners demanding a re-test of the May 5 NEET-UG exam, the results of which were released last month and have been affected by leaked question papers and the award of ‘grace marks’, or preferential marking, for 1,563 students.

The court said certain circumstances – specifically “(if) the time lag between the leak and actual exam is limited” – would argue against a re-test. “If students were asked to memorise (the leaked questions) on the morning of the exam then the leak might not have been so widespread…”

The three-judge bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud said it therefore was loathe to order a re-test for nearly 24 lakh students – many of whom come from poor families and could ill-afford to spend money travelling to exam centres – unless necessary. A re-test is the “last option”, it said.

“One thing is clear… questions were leaked. The sanctity of the exam has been compromised… this is beyond doubt. Now we have to establish the extent of the leak,” the Chief Justice said, “We have to be careful while ordering a re-test. We are dealing with the careers of lakhs of students.”

“You don’t cancel an exam only because two students cheated. We must be careful…”

The Supreme Court said a re-test could only be ordered if there was sufficient time (the court did not specify how much this should be) between the leak of the questions and conduct of the exam.

“If time lag was too long then there needs to be a re-test… or, if we can’t identify candidates who are guilty of wrongdoing, then a retest has to be ordered,” the Supreme Court said.

On the subject of the time lag, the court also sought details about the printing of the question papers. And, in a humorous aside, also reminded the NTA to not reveal details about the process.

Therefore, instead of ordering an immediate re-test the court advised the constitution of a multi-disciplinary panel to probe this issue, which is already being investigated by the CBI and the police.

The court also rapped the government for being in “denial” and said it should be “ruthless” in dealing with candidates who paid for the leaked exam and those who supplied the question paper.

“Let us not be in self-denial about what happened…” the bench, also including Justice JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, said, adding, “Assuming we do not cancel, what will the government do to identify the beneficiaries? You have to be ruthless… bring some sense of confidence to the process.”

Earlier the court had been told question papers were available on social media, including popular messaging apps like Telegram, at least 24 hours before the exam was to begin. It acknowledged this point and said that if questions had been so leaked, it could have “spread like wildfire”.

Controversy over the NEET-UG exam broke last month after results were declared.

The first red flags were the unusually high number of perfect scores; a record 67 students, including six from one coaching centre, scored a maximum 720. Questions were also asked over the award of ‘grace marks’ – not exam protocol, the NTA said – to 1,563 students.

The NEET exam – held annually for admission to undergraduate medical courses – were conducted on May 5. Controversy over the exam – which nearly 24 lakh students took – broke last month after results were announced. The first red flags were the unusually high number of perfect scores; a record 67 students, including six from one coaching centre, scored a maximum 720. Questions were also asked over the award of ‘grace marks’ – not exam protocol, the NTA said – to 1,563 students.

Chief Justice of India D. Y. Chandrachud is felicitated with the ‘Award for Global Leadership’, at Harvard Law School, in Massachusetts, USA.
| Photo Credit: PTI

However bad a Constitution may be, it may turn out to be good if those responsible for its functioning happen to be a “good lot,” Chief Justice of India D. Y. Chandrachud said while citing B. R. Ambedkar and hailing his idea of constitutionalism as being responsible for dismantling deeply entrenched caste hierarchy in India.

The CJI made the observations during his keynote address at the Sixth International Conference on the ‘Unfinished Legacy of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’ at the Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts, in the U.S. on October 22.

The CJI highlighted the idea of constitutionalism of Ambedkar, who headed the committee tasked to frame the Indian Constitution and said it was instrumental in transforming Indian society by dismantling deeply entrenched caste hierarchy and promoting social, economic and political empowerment of marginalised groups.

“Ambedkar’s legacy continues to shape the constitutional values of modern India, serving as a beacon for social reform and the pursuit of justice for all,” he said.

He cited Ambedkar, who had said however good a Constitution may be, it is sure to turn out bad because those who are called to work it happen to be a bad lot.

“However bad a Constitution may be, it may turn out to be good if those who are called to work it happen to be a good lot,” the CJI said quoting Ambedkar.

The CJI, who is in the USA, was also felicitated with the ‘Award for Global Leadership’ by the Center on the Legal Profession, Harvard Law School on Saturday.

The announcement about CJI Chandrachud being chosen as the recipient of the award was made on January 11, 2023 in an online ceremony.

He was present at the Harvard Law School on Saturday for a fireside chat with David Wilkins, Professor at Harvard Law School and Faculty Director, Center on the Legal Profession.