 |
|
The article focuses on a disagreement between two judges of the Indian Supreme Court, highlighting a debate over the interpretation of past rulings and the appropriateness of labeling previous judges' decisions as 'a disservice to the Constitution'. The core of the disagreement stems from a recent judgment concerning private property rights, where Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud's majority opinion used the phrase 'disservice to the Constitution' to describe certain earlier rulings. This phrase has sparked a strong reaction from Justice Nagarathna, who penned a dissenting opinion in the same case.
Justice Nagarathna argues that the CJI's characterization of past judges as having done a 'disservice to the Constitution' is unwarranted and detrimental to the legal system. She emphasizes that the historical context and economic circumstances of the time when those rulings were delivered should be considered. The significant shifts in India's economic policies since the 1990s, including globalization, liberalization, and privatization, do not automatically invalidate past judicial decisions. While those decisions may not be entirely relevant or suitable in the current economic climate, they reflected the realities of their era. Justice Nagarathna contends that characterizing these past rulings as a 'disservice' ignores the complex interplay of legal, social, and economic factors that influence judicial decisions.
Justice Nagarathna's critique of the CJI's language extends beyond a mere semantic dispute. She argues that such a practice of criticizing former judges' rulings sets a dangerous precedent. She fears that the precedent of labelling past decisions as a 'disservice' might create an atmosphere of instability and undermine the perceived consistency and stability of the legal system. By criticizing the CJI's use of this phrase, Justice Nagarathna aims to preserve the integrity of the Supreme Court's jurisprudence and ensure that the court's decisions remain rooted in respect for its own historical legacy and the evolving needs of society.
Source: A disservice done? The missing quote from CJI DY Chandrachud's judgment in private property case