Latest news with #Chandrachud
Hans India
10-06-2025
- Politics
- Hans India
From socialism to market economy-Power over private property
The judgment allows for some private resources to be used for the public good under Article 39(b) while preserving individuals' property rights, supporting India's economic growth within a democratic framework. The court emphasized that DPSPs are not enforceable laws. The government must balance social welfare goals with citizens' rights. Recently, former Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud led the majority (8:1) and wrote: 'India's economic trajectory has shifted from socialism to liberalization and market reforms. The Constitution does not endorse any single economic ideology.' He added that calling all private property 'material resources' forces a rigid socialist theory, which no longer reflects India's democratic economic reality. Are there any limits on power of the government over private property? Can the government seize any private property by calling it a 'material resource of the community' under Article 39(b) of the Indian Constitution? On 5 November 2024, a nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India delivered a historic verdict in the Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra case. The ruling settled a long-standing constitutional question: It answered with a clear no, thereby reaffirming individual property rights and limiting government power. This judgment has brought clarity to the conflict between Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) and Fundamental Rights, and overruled earlier judgments that adopted a broad socialist interpretation of Article 39(b). Ignoring the Directive Principles Article 39(b) is part of the Directive Principles of State Policy in Part IV of the Constitution. It says: 'The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good.' It encourages laws for equitable distribution of wealth and resources, but DPSPs are not legally enforceable—they are only guiding principles. Do we have any Property Rights? Before 1978, right to property was a Fundamental Right under Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31. However, due to frequent land reforms, bank nationalization, and other socialist welfare measures, the Parliament passed the: 25th Constitutional Amendment (1971): Introduced Article 31C to protect laws made under Article 39(b) and (c) from being challenged for violating Fundamental Rights like Articles 14, 19, and 31. 42nd Constitutional Amendment (1976): Further expanded Article 31C to cover all Directive Principles, not just 39(b) and (c). But in Minerva Mills (1980), the Supreme Court struck down this wider protection, ruling that only Article 39(b) and (c) could remain shielded. Where Article 31C was upheld: In the famous Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), the Supreme Court upheld Article 31C, but with a caveat — laws passed under it must still pass judicial review. This was to prevent misuse of DPSPs to undermine basic structure principles like judicial independence or fundamental rights. Thus, the Court permitted limited curtailment of property rights, but only in pursuit of the common good as envisaged in Articles 39(b) and (c), and not at the cost of the basic structure of the Constitution. A 32-year fight for justice: Though justice is upheld in some cases, delay is the biggest problem. The current verdict comes from a petition filed by the Property Owners Association (POA) in Mumbai, challenging Chapter VIIIA of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act (MHADA), 1976, which permitted the government to acquire 'cessed properties' (old private buildings) for restoration. The POA argued this violated their right to property, and that Article 39(b) had been wrongly used to justify taking over all private property. The case spanned decades and multiple bench references, eventually resulting in this nine-judge bench being formed. Govt cannot acquire private property per se: The Court ruled that not every private property can be called a 'material resource of the community'. Article 39(b) does not give the government a blanket power to seize all private assets for the 'common good'. Material resources- Limited, not universal: The court clarified that 'material resources' must meet specific criteria such as: Belonging in public trust; Having community impact; being scarce or capable of causing harm by monopoly and possessing intrinsic public value like water and minerals, among others. Thus, private homes or businesses do not automatically qualify. Balanced approach to 'distribution' The term 'distribution' under Article 39(b) includes: Government acquisition and redistribution to private parties — only when it benefits the common good. So, laws under 39(b) must meet both public interest and proportionality tests. Survival of Article 31C: The Court confirmed Article 31C still protects laws made under Article 39(b) and (c) from Fundamental Rights challenges, but not from judicial review. This limits the misuse of Article 31C as a shield. The court recognized the dramatic shifts like private property, from traditional assets to data and space exploration. The judgment emphasizes the need to respect evolving market realities. Are we reinforcing a market-oriented economic model? It is interpreted that this judgment offers protection for marginalized communities against the unjust acquisition of their small farms and forest lands while promoting responsible management of essential public resources. The judgment allows for some private resources to be used for the public good under Article 39(b) while preserving individuals' property rights, supporting India's economic growth within a democratic framework. The court emphasized that DPSPs are not enforceable laws. The government must balance social welfare goals with citizens' rights. Justice Iyer's opinion was relied on by subsequent Constitution Benches in Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing and Mafatlal Industries judgments in 1982 and 1997, respectively; hence, necessitating a reference to the nine-judge Bench. The CJI quoted a 'harsh' observation made by the Chief Justice about Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in a 'proposed judgment'. Justice Iyer was a former top court judge whose humanism and reforms in criminal justice are considered legendary. His coinage 'bail is the rule, jail is the exception' is still assiduously quoted in Supreme Court judgments. Justice Krishna Iyer's dissenting view in Ranganath Reddy (1977) that all private wealth could be treated as public resources. The judgment noted that while Justice Iyer's ideas were rooted in the socialist vision of the 1970s, India's voters have since chosen liberal economic policies. Rejecting the view of Justice Iyer as one presenting a 'particular ideology', the majority opinion penned by Chief Justice Chandrachud said India has moved on from socialism to liberalisation to market-based reforms. Justice Iyer was a former top court judge, whose humanism and reforms in criminal justice are considered legendary. His coinage 'bail is the rule, jail is the exception' is still assiduously quoted in Supreme Court judgments. In separate opinions, Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Sudhanshu Dhulia, he had observed that 'the Krishna Iyer doctrine does a disservice to the broad and flexible spirit of the Constitution'. Dissenting: Justice B.V. Nagarathna: 'Judges must not decry the contributions of their predecessors. The institution is greater than individuals.' Justice Dhulia praised Justice Iyer's humanist vision, saying: 'The Krishna Iyer Doctrine was built on fairness and empathy. In dark times, it illuminated our path.' Though he dissented on interpretational grounds, he recognized the spirit of the Constitution as a living document, balancing rights and welfare. Finally, the November 5, 2024 Supreme Court ruling is a turning point in the constitutional understanding of property rights in India, saying: Individual property rights are protected. The government cannot seize private property arbitrarily. Article 39(b) remains relevant but must be applied with caution and clear public purpose. Article 31C survives, but judicial review cannot be ousted. The Directive Principles must align with fundamental rights, not override them. Courts remain vigilant in preserving constitutional balance between economic justice and individual liberty. This landmark judgment reaffirms the Supreme Court's role as a constitutional guardian, ensuring that the state acts for public welfare without violating basic rights. It also recognizes the evolving nature of economic policies in a vibrant democracy, where people, not dogmas, shape the nation's path. (The writer is Professor of the Constitution of India and founder-Dean, School of Law, Mahindra University, Hyderabad)
India Today
06-06-2025
- Business
- India Today
DY Chandrachud takes key role in German energy firm vs Russia dispute
In a significant development in the ongoing arbitration between German energy company Wintershall and Russia, former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud has been designated as the appointing authority under the Energy Charter Treaty, a multilateral pact that works under a framework for cooperation in the energy Chandrachud, who demitted office as the Chief Justice in November 2024, is widely regarded for his contributions to constitutional law and international philosophy of law. His appointment signals the continued involvement of eminent jurists from diverse legal traditions in resolving high-stakes international investment development came following the resignation of Eduardo Siqueiros as the appointing authority on May 22, 2025. The designation of the appointing authority comes under the rules of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), which frequently provides administrative support in disputes between investors and states under the Energy Charter Treaty April this year, Wintershall moved the ECT tribunal seeking an anti-suit injunction directed against the Russian court proceedings, in response to which Moscow had asked for a short suspension of arbitration proceedings also offering that the court proceedings in Russia would be of the arbitrators in the case resigned after Russia didn't accommodate his request to terminate its injunction proceedings and ensure that the ECT tribunal and arbitration counsel were immune from prosecution in was followed by another procedural order in May where the truncated ECT tribunal agreed to temporarily suspend arbitration proceedings conditional on termination of Russian injunction proceedings. It was also stated that such proceedings amounted to a breach of the arbitration a May 24 order, the two arbitrators directed that the case resume, and Moscow was ordered to terminate the Russian injunction proceedings immediately and not file proceedings that would jeopardise the arbitration's per December 2023 Russian decrees, Wintershall Dea's stakes in the Yuzhno-Russkoye oil and gas condensate field and the Achimov gas projects were given back to newly-created Russian companies and offered for sale to Gazovyye company had initiated arbitration proceedings against Russia, which had repeatedly protested against such cases, saying they should have been considered only in Russian on one hand, the state has filed a challenge against the two remaining arbitrators, and on the other, Wintershall, in this case, has sought the move of the seat of arbitration from Dubai to per the arbitrator's latest order, the decision regarding seat relocation was deferred until either the reconstitution of the tribunal, or resolution of Russia's challenge against the two arbitrators, whichever is the ECT, the appointing authority plays an important role and has responsibilities, including facilitation of the constitution of the arbitral tribunal, particularly in case of disagreements between DY Chandrachud served as the Chief Justice of India from November 2022 to November 2024 and was succeeded by Justice Sanjiv Khanna, who also retired last Reel
NDTV
15-05-2025
- Politics
- NDTV
Former Chief Justice DY Chandrachud Joins National Law University As Professor
Former Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud has been appointed as a distinguished professor at the National Law University (NLU), Delhi, marking what the institution termed a "transformative chapter" in Indian legal education. Announcing the appointment on X on Thursday, NLU Delhi said, "We are profoundly honoured to welcome Dr Justice D Y Chandrachud, former Chief Justice of India, as a Distinguished Professor at National Law University Delhi." The post also carried a photograph of Chandrachud with NLU Vice-Chancellor G S Bajpai. We are profoundly honoured to welcome Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, former Chief Justice of India, as a Distinguished Professor at National Law University Delhi. — National Law University Delhi (@NLUDofficial) May 15, 2025 Describing the association as a pivotal moment for the legal academia, Bajpai said in a message, "This historic association marks a transformative chapter in Indian legal education, bringing one of our most progressive jurists to mentor the next generation of legal minds. Justice Chandrachud's presence will profoundly enrich our academic ecosystem." As part of the collaboration, NLU Delhi will establish a Centre for Constitutional Studies, where Chandrachud will guide cutting-edge research. "His legacy in constitutional morality, transformative constitutionalism, and dynamic interpretation of fundamental rights offers unparalleled empirical and doctrinal material for academic inquiry," Bajpai said. To further engage students and the legal community, the university will launch a new initiative titled "In the Spirit of Justice: The DYC Distinguished Lecture Series" starting July, which will aim to tackle contemporary legal challenges through the lens of Chandrachud's jurisprudence. Chandrachud, who demitted office in November 2024 after a two-year tenure as the 50th Chief Justice of India, is widely regarded as a progressive voice in the judiciary. His tenure in the Supreme Court, beginning May 13, 2016, saw his involvement in 38 Constitution benches and landmark rulings on issues including the Ayodhya land dispute, decriminalisation of consensual same-sex relations, the right to privacy, and the abrogation of Article 370. He served as a judge in the Bombay High Court from 2000 before his elevation as the chief justice of the Allahabad High Court in 2013. He was designated a senior advocate in 1998 and served as the additional solicitor general before his judicial appointment. NLU Delhi said the latest development reaffirms its commitment to advancing legal scholarships that bridge theoretical knowledge with social transformation.
Hindustan Times
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Ex-CJI Chandrachud joins NLU Delhi as professor, to head centre for constitutional studies
New Delhi, Former Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud has been appointed as a distinguished professor at the National Law University , Delhi, marking what the institution termed a "transformative chapter" in Indian legal education. Announcing the appointment on X on Thursday, NLU Delhi said, 'We are profoundly honoured to welcome Dr Justice D Y Chandrachud, former Chief Justice of India, as a Distinguished Professor at National Law University Delhi.' The post also carried a photograph of Chandrachud with NLU Vice-Chancellor G S Bajpai. Describing the association as a pivotal moment for the legal academia, Bajpai said in a message, 'This historic association marks a transformative chapter in Indian legal education, bringing one of our most progressive jurists to mentor the next generation of legal minds. Justice Chandrachud's presence will profoundly enrich our academic ecosystem.' As part of the collaboration, NLU Delhi will establish a Centre for Constitutional Studies, where Chandrachud will guide cutting-edge research. 'His legacy in constitutional morality, transformative constitutionalism, and dynamic interpretation of fundamental rights offers unparalleled empirical and doctrinal material for academic inquiry,' Bajpai said. To further engage students and the legal community, the university will launch a new initiative titled "In the Spirit of Justice: The DYC Distinguished Lecture Series" starting July, which will aim to tackle contemporary legal challenges through the lens of Chandrachud's jurisprudence. Chandrachud, who demitted office in November 2024 after a two-year tenure as the 50th Chief Justice of India, is widely regarded as a progressive voice in the judiciary. His tenure in the Supreme Court, beginning May 13, 2016, saw his involvement in 38 Constitution benches and landmark rulings on issues including the Ayodhya land dispute, decriminalisation of consensual same-sex relations, the right to privacy, and the abrogation of Article 370. He served as a judge in the Bombay High Court from 2000 before his elevation as the chief justice of the Allahabad High Court in 2013. He was designated a senior advocate in 1998 and served as the additional solicitor general before his judicial appointment. NLU Delhi said the latest development reaffirms its commitment to advancing legal scholarships that bridge theoretical knowledge with social transformation.
Time of India
09-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Good for free speech
Times of India's Edit Page team comprises senior journalists with wide-ranging interests who debate and opine on the news and issues of the day. SC gives a fine & necessary order Overturning a Delhi HC verdict, Supreme Court on Friday held that public scrutiny of court orders is not just kosher, but also necessary 'as a check against judicial caprice or vagaries', in the words of an earlier 9-judge bench. SC reiterated public gaze was 'a powerful instrument for creating confidence of the public in the fairness, objectivity and impartiality of the administration of justice.' The case was about Delhi HC's order to Wikimedia to take down a website page that discussed the court's order on the legal dispute between ANI and Wikimedia. ANI had accused Wikimedia of defamation; the page in question detailed the case – this, Delhi HC held, was 'contempt of court'. Wikimedia moved SC, which on Friday correctly said that 'it is not the court's job to tell the media: delete this, take that down.' Courts frequently bristle at even bona fide criticism, using a very broad definition in the Contempt of Courts Act 1971, which criminalises acts that 'scandalise' a court. Even Chandrachud's pan-India initiative to live-stream court proceedings was also centred on enhancing transparency. SC in this case used twin tests of necessity and proportionality to conclude that to improve any system, including the judiciary, introspection was key, and only robust debate could ensure that, 'even on issues before the court'. This is not just a blow for free speech but a step towards a maturing of Indian democracy. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email This piece appeared as an editorial opinion in the print edition of The Times of India.
