Debate Brews Over Supreme Court's Constitutional Interpretation

Supreme Court judges B V Nagarathna and Sudhanshu Dhulia have strongly challenged Chief Justice DY Chandrachud's criticism of the Krishna Iyer doctrine, which was overruled in a recent verdict. They argue such remarks undermine the adaptability of constitutional spirit and discredit past judicial contributions based on evolving economic policies.

Supreme Court judges B V Nagarathna and Sudhanshu Dhulia have expressed strong opposition to Chief Justice DY Chandrachud's comments on the Krishna Iyer doctrine. The doctrine was dismissed in a recent verdict regarding the acquisition of private properties by the state.

Justice Nagarathna emphasized that labeling the doctrine as a disservice undermines the flexible nature of the Constitution and disregards the context in which past judgements were made. Justice Dhulia echoed this sentiment, characterizing the criticism as unnecessary and unfounded.

The verdict, part of a nine-judge bench decision, overruled Justice Iyer's ruling on state acquisition of resources, prompting concerns about how future judiciary may perceive these past interpretations amid shifts in economic policy.

(With inputs from agencies.)