Judicial decisions of justice V R Krishna Iyer

Interpretation of statutes

Submitted by:

Mannem srinivas gowd

Roll no: 2013066

Semester-VII

________________________________________________________

DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

Visakhapatnam

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This project is done as a semester project, as a part of course titled judicial decisions of
justice Krishna Iyer. I am really thankful to our course instructor R. Bharath Kumar,
professor, Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University, for his valuable guidance and
assistance without which the accomplishment of this task would have never been possible. I
also thank him for giving this opportunity.

2
Hypothesis

Justice Krishna Iyer played a crucial role in ensuring social justice by laying foundation for
the public interest litigation in India.

Objective

The project will analyze various judgments rendered by Justice Krishna and will mention the
relevance of this case.

Scope

Project will cover the facts, judgment, reasoning followed by recent case laws where the case
was relied on or overruled.

Research Methodology

This project report is purely based on doctrinal research.

3
 List of Cases

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India 1978 AIR 597

All India Judges' Association vs Union Of India 1992 AIR 16
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration 1980 AIR 1579
Municipal Council, Ratlam, vs Vardhichand AIR 1980 SC 1622
Shamsher Singh v State of Punjab (1974) 2 SCC 831
Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union caseAIR 1981 SC 344
Madhav Hayawadanrao Hoskot v State of Maharashtra
State Of Punjab vs Gurdial Singh 1980 AIR 319
Anil Dey vs State Of West BengalAIR 1974 SC 832
State Of Haryana vs Darshana Devi & Ors 1979 AIR 855

Table of Contents

Early Life..............................................................................................................................4

4
Stint at Law Commission......................................................................................................5

Supreme court of India

1. Social Justice and Judicial Activism........................................................................7

2. Landmark judgments...............................................................................................8
Post retirement works..........................................................................................................14

Conclusion...........................................................................................................................15

Bibliography........................................................................................................................16

Justice Krishna Iyer In Ensuring Social Justice

Early Life

Justice Vidyanathapuram Rama Ayyar Krishna Iyer was born on 15 November 1914 in
Palakkad, Kerala. He studied law from Madras University and practiced law at Thalasseri,
Kerala. Before being appointed as the judge of the hon ble Supreme Court of India, Justice

5
Iyer contested elections as an independent candidate and was elected in 1952. He even
became a minister of law, justice, irrigation, power, prison and social welfare when Mr.
E.M.S. Nambodiripad was the Chief Minister of Kerala. Several people oriented legislations
were passed, a scheme for legal aid to the poor was put into action, and for the prisoners,
S.C./S.T sector, it was a boon. Court-fee for weaker sections were exempted and other unique
provisions like Lawyers Benefit Fund enacted. The honorable judges were persuaded,
prevailing over initial friction, to increase the number of working days from 200 to 210.
Several new courts were opened and some practical changes to promote the convenience of
litigants were made. On the prison front, vast humanist reforms were brought about. Dignity,
rehabilitation, canteens and cultural opportunities were provided. Historic, pioneering prison
reforms! So too rescue homes for women and juvenile homes to redeem children. A master
plan of the water resources of Kerala was prepared and presented by Krishna Iyer, the
minister, to Nehru, the Prime Minister. Many minor irrigation projects were begun and
completed with large participation of the masses and the middle classes. All parties joined in
making these irrigation and electricity extension projects a peoples planned execution. The
inspiration for this patriotic dimension of development on the hydel and irrigational projects,
came from the Jawaharlal paradigm and Gandhian Constructive Programme. Indeed, a fair
deal for transfer of river water to Tamil Nadu was worked out and a just treaty reached on
Krishna Iyers initiative of course, with EMS, the Chief, on the Kerala side and Kamaraj and
C. Subramanyam for Tamil Nadu. This unique river water treaty, though small as an event,
had a symbolic national portent. As Police Minister and Prisons Minister Krishna Iyer did
considerable corrective measures humanizing these institutions. Rehabilitation and prison
transformation were his pioneering work, including parole, remissions, music, sports and
reformatory facilities. Police did sramdan alongside of the people-a unique move-and other
changes in the police role among the people were made. Handcuffs of arrestees were
abolished save in exceptional situations. Administration in the hands of Minister Iyer was
efficient and creative and democracy in action, beyond Party considerations, made Iyer truly
an imaginative, humanist Independent in office, committed to the socialist ethos of the
Constitution.1However, he resumed practice after he lost election in 1962.

1. https://indialawyers.wordpress.com/2009/01/24/justice-vr-krishna-iyer-legal-luminary / last
accessed on 15th october 2016.

6
Justice V R Krishna Iyer: Man, who rescued Supreme Court from supreme shame

Some eminent lawyers of the generation before us had mixed feelings about the man who led
the revolution in jurisprudence which helped a then-floundering Supreme Court find its
identity. He challenged the status quo and thus had his share of critics and followers. The gen
next has his judgments to read. For my generation, he was the architect of the Supreme Court,
post Emergency. from the Supreme Court of India, he made it the Supreme Court for Indians.
He defined fundamental rights as well as charters of freedom, not just to acquire and hold
wealth, but freedom from poverty and misery. He ensured that the hesitation in reading due
process into Article 21 was dispelled. The foundation for a whole jurisprudence was laid by
reading Article 14 as a charter against non-arbitrariness.

By refusing an outright stay on the verdict setting aside Indira Gandhi's election, he showed
that however high and mighty you are, the rules of the game do not change. The bar for future
judges was set very high! This was what may be called the Krishnaiyerisation of Indian
jurisprudence.2

He rescued the Supreme Court from the supreme shame of the Shivkant Shukla judgment (in
1976, Justices P N Bhagwati, A N Ray ,YV Chandrachud and M H Beg agreed with the then
Indira Gandhi government that even the right to life stood abrogated during the Emergency in
ADM Jabalpur vs Shivkant Shukla case). The verdict constitutes one of the darkest chapters
in the history of the court as it struck at the very heart of fundamental rights. It was a
judgment that put a question mark on the credibility of the institution. If detention even on a
mistaken identity was not amenable habeas corpus, and a detenu lacked the locus to question
his own detention, then we could as well wind up the Supreme Court -and the high courts as
well. Post Emergency, the Krishna Iyer jurisprudence breathed new, life into what was seen
as a listless institution. Supreme Court today stands tall and is the most powerful institution
of its kind in the world and its work has shown that it is sui generis. India needs such a court
even if other countries do not have or need such a court. That other similar institutions do not
do what our court does did not deter Krishna Iyer from redesigning constitutional remedies to
address constitutional aberrations.

2 http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Justice-V-R-Krishna-Iyer-Man-who-rescued-
Supreme-Court-from-supreme-shame/articleshow/45380178.cms/ last accessed on 15th
October 2016

7
Stint at High Court and Law Commission:

He was appointed the judge of Kerala High Court in 1968 and occupied the position till 1971.
In the year 1971, he became the member of Law Commission of India where he served for
period of two years. It was during his tenure as the member of the Law Commission that his
idea of securing social justice took shape. Justice Iyer drafted first comprehensive report on
legal aid.3 It was this report which later on, formed the strategic arm of the legal aid
movement in India. After a three year stint at the Kerala High Court and another short run of
two years at the Law Commission of India, Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer was elevated as the
Judge of Honble Supreme Court of India in 1973.

Judge Of The Supreme Court Of India

Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, a judge of the Supreme Court of India between 1973 and 1980
championed the cause individual liberties and social justice.It was Krishna Iyers judgment in
Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v. Abdulbhai Faizullabhai4, which served to forge the movement
towards public interest litigation, which has today achieved a hallowed status. He was
pioneer in realizing the goal of "social justice" by laying down, along with Justice P.N.
Bhagwati, the principles of Public Interest Litigation. In Maneka Gandhi v Union of India
Iyer held that fundamental rights cannot be read in isolation. He extended the scope of
fundamental rights, especially right to life under Article 21 equating the concept of
"procedure established by law" with American "due process. In his idea of ensuring justice,
he went to such an extent that he even treated a letter addressed to a judge by a prisoner of
Tihar Jail as a Petition in the case of Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration.

Social Justice and Judicial Activism

Goal of Judicial Process: -

Ultimate goal of Judicial Process, undoubtedly, is to ensure social order and to make the
society safer for its people. Law cannot be effective and useful without taking recourse of
judicial process in maintaining social order. Justice P. N. Bhagwati and Justice V. R. Krishna
Iyer, both were of the opinion that law is an instrument of social change, social justice and
social ordering. Justice Rangnath Mishra, former C.J.I., has rightly observed that ' Law is a
3. Report of the Committee on Legal Aid titled "processionals justice to poor" presided over
by Krishna Iyer.
4. 1976 AIR 1455

8
means to an end and justice is the end 5. Therefore, undoubtedly we can say that Judicial
Process, which operate laws, is an instrument of social ordering.

Justice Krishna Iyer and Justice Bhagwati gave rise to the phenomenon known as judicial
activism that can be described as a mechanism to curb legislative adventurism and executive
tyranny when these are to he detriment of those persons these institutions are bound to serve,
by way of enforcing constitutional limits; it was best exemplified by justice Iyers creative re-
interpretation of the texts of both the constitution and the other laws in order to serve the
needs of contemporary society.

Landmark judgments by justice Iyer (Few):

1) Maneka Gandhi case6

Facts

Maneka Gandhi was issued a passport on 1/06/1976 under the Passport Act 1967. The
regional passport officer, New Delhi, issued a letter dated 2/7/1977 addressed to Maneka
Gandhi, in which she was asked to surrender her passport under section 10(3)(c) of the Act in
public interest, within 7 days from the date of receipt of the letter.7

Issue

Whether right to go Abroad is a part of right to personal liberty under Article 21.

Judgment

To the extent to which section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act, 1967 authorizes the passport
authority to impound a passport in the interest of the general public, it is violative of Article
14 of the Constitution since it confers vague and undefined power on the passport authority.

Reasoning

One of the significant interpretation in this case is the discovery of inter connections between
the three Articles- Article 14, 19 and 21. This a law which prescribes a procedure for

5. All India Judges' Association vs Union of India 1992 AIR 165

6. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India 1978 AIR 597
7. http://lawfarm.in/a-case-analysis-of-the-maneka-gandhi-case/ last accessed on 18 th October
2016

9
depriving a person of personal liberty has to fulfill the requirements of Articles 14 and 19
also.

2) Sunil Batra case8

Facts

The grievance of Batra, sentenced to death by the Delhi Sessions Court, is against de facto
solitary confinement, pending his appeal, without de jure sanction. And the complaint of
Sobraj is against the distressing disablement, by bar fetters, of men behind bars especially of
undertrials, and that for unlimited duration, on the ipse dixit of the prison 'brass'.

Issues

1) Claim for "civilised standards of human decency" in prisons.

2) "Does a prison setting, ipso facto, outlaw the rule of law, lock out the judicial process from
the jail gates and declare a long holiday for human rights of convicts in confinement?

Judgment

The court mentioned the legally enforceable rights available for a prisoner.

Reasoning

The supreme court held that there can be no total deprivation of a prisoner's rights of life and
liberty, and that safe keeping in jail custody is the limited jurisdiction of the jailer. It was
further laid down that no "fetters" shall continue beyond day time and a prolonged
continuance of bar-fetters shall be with the approval of the chief judicial magistrate or a
sessions judge. This was in consonance with justice Iyers views that reformation, in contrast
to deterrence, would by far increase the efficacy of the criminal justice system.

3) Ratlam municipality case9

8 Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration 1980 AIR 1579

9 Municipal Council, Ratlam, vs Vardhichand AIR 1980 SC 1622

10
Facts

The residents of a locality within the limits of Ratlam Municipality, tormented by stench and
stink by open drains and public excretions by nearby slum dwellers moved the Sub-
Divisional Magistrate under Sec. 133 CrPC to require the Municipality to construct drain
pipes with the flow of water to wash the filth and stop the stench towards the members of the
Public. The Municipality pleaded paucity of funds as the chief cause of disability to carry out
its duties.

The Magistrate gave directions to the Municipality to draft a plan within six months for
removing nuisance. The High Court approved the order of the Magistrate, to which the
Municipality further appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

The issue was whether a Court can compel a statutory body to carry out its duties to the
community by constructing sanitation facilities?

Judgment

The Supreme Court through J. Krishna Iyer, upheld the order of the High Court and directed
the Municipality to take immediate action within its statutory powers to construct sufficient
number of public latrines, provide water supply and scavenging services, to construct drains,
cesspools and to provide basic amenities to he public.

The Court also accepted the use of sec. 133 CrPC for removal of public nuisance. A
responsible municipal council constituted for the precise purpose of preserving public health
and providing better finances cannot run away from its principal duty by pleading financial
inability.

Reasoning

Article 21 was interpreted as including the right to a wholesome environment and changed
the whole approach of the courts in matters concerning environment.

11
4)Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage case10

Facts

The respondent employees were fined by the Appellant Board for misconduct, duct and
various sums were recovered from them. Therefore, they filed a Claims Application under
Industrial Dispute Act alleging that the said punishment was imposed in violation of the
principles of natural justice. The appellant Board raised a preliminary objection before the
Labour Court that the Board, is not an industry within the meaning of the expression under
section 2(j).
Issue

Whether Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board will fall under the definition of
Industry and in fact, particularly the issue was what is an Industry under Section 2(j) of the
Industrial Dispute Act?

Judgment

Justice Krishna Iyer gave the widest possible meaning to the expression industry .Thus in
Bangalore Water Supply and Sewer age Board v Rajappa, the Supreme Court laid down the
following test which is practically reiteration of the test laid down in Hospital Mazdoor Sabha
case:

Triple test. Where there is a

(1) Systematic activity;

(2) Organised by co operation, between employer and employee and

(3) For the production and/or distribution of goods and services calculated to satisfy human
wants and wishes, prima facie

there is an industry in the enterprise. This is known as triple test,

Thus, gave a wider coverage to workers in various establishments which were not considered
industry till then.

10 1978 AIR 548

12
5) Shamsher Singh v State of Punjab11

Facts

The two appellants in this case had joined the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch) and
were on probation. The probation of both were terminated by orders of concerned Ministers /
Chief Minister in conformity with the recommendations of the High Court under different
provisions of relevant rules. The orders of termination were issued in the name of the
Governor of Punjab without seeking or obtaining his personal satisfaction.

Issue

Whether the Governor as the constitutional or the formal head of the State can exercise
powers and functions of appointment and removal of members of the Subordinate Judicial
Service only personally.

Judgment

the distinction spelt out in Jayantilal does not in any way contradict the fact that the President
is the constitutional head of the State. And thus, being the constituional head of a
parliamentary system, he has to act in accordance with the aid and advice of the Council of
Ministers. Therefore, whether the functions exercised by the President are functions of the
Union or the functions of the President in his personal capacity, they have equally to be
exercised with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, and the same is true of the
functions of the Governor except those which he has to exercise in his discretion.

Reasoning

The Court also laid down the exceptional cases when the President could act independently of
the advice of the Council of Ministers. This case is relevant because the court laid down that
the Indian administrative system is substantially based on the Westminster system where the
Queen is bound to follow the Cabinets advice except in rare exceptions in which the Cabinet
decision is irrational or arbitrary or perverse or plainly and blatantly biased or mala fide. In
such an instance, the Governor may have the discretion.

11 (1974) 2 SCC 831

13
6)Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union case12

Facts

The petitioners (workers) challenged the legality of the sale of certain plants and
equipment of the Sindri Fertilizer Factory.
Issue
Whether workers had the locus standi in this case was questioned by the factory.

Judgment

Supreme court held the locus standi exists by emphasizing the need for relaxing the rules
relating to locus standi to include those whose legal rights have not been directly violated.

Reasoning

Justice Krishna Iyer enumerated the following reasons for liberalization of the rule of Locus
Standi:-

1.Exercise of State power to eradicate corruption may result in unrelated interference with
individuals rights.

2.Social justice wan ants liberal judicial review administrative action.

3.Restrictive rules of standing are antithesis to a healthy system ofadministrative action.

4.Activism is essential for participative public justice.

7)Madhav Hayawadanrao Hoskot v State of Maharashtra13

Facts

The case came up as a Special Leave Petition by the accused, M.H. Hoskot, who was charged
with forgery and misrepresentation of a college degree. The shopkeeper to whom he went for

12 AIR 1981 SC 344

13 1978 AIR 1548

14
getting a fake seal made, however, turned out to be clever and he gave pre-emptive
information to the police. The Sessions court held the accused guilty beyond reasonable
doubt for grave offences, but softened his punishment to a large degree. This gave rise to two
appeals to the High Court, High Court dismissed the Petitioner's appeal and allowed the
Respondent's, increasing the punishment to three years rigorous imprisonment. The appeal in
the Supreme Court came up against this harsh punishment, but after a period of four years.
The reasons stated by the Petitioner for this delay was that a copy of the High Court had not
been served to him.

Issue

Whether prisoner is entitled to free legal services who is indigent or otherwise disabled from
securing legal assistance.

Judgment

The Court in its judgment categorically stated that the provision of the Code of Criminal
Procedure granting Right to Appeal was implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution. It could not
be denied under any circumstances and it is the duty of courts to facilitate an accused
invoking this right. It further states that Article 39A is an interpretive tool' for Article 21. It
affirms the position in Maneka Gandhi v Union of India that personal liberty could not be cut
down without fair legal procedure. To ensure this was a State's duty and not any form of
charity. Further, though the services were to be free to the beneficiary, the lawyer had to be
remunerated at the State's cost.

Justice KrishnaIyer observed that providing free legal aid is the State's duty and not
Government's charity.14

8)State Of Punjab vs Gurdial Singh15

Facts
The State initiated acquisition proceedings in respect of the same land a second time,
invoking the emergency powers under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act. The

14 http://pib.nic.in/newsite/mbErel.aspx?relid=118011 last accessed on 19th October 2016.

151980 AIR 319

15
Respondents assailed the acquisition before the High Court because the statutory power to
acquire land had been misused.
Issues
1)Where, in the setting of Sec. 17 of the Act where to draw the legal line between legitimate
emergency power and illegitimate 'emergency excess?

2) On the facts, here, is it legitimate on the part of State to do so?

Judgment and reasoning

Justice Krishna Iyer observed: It is fundamental that compulsory taking of a mans property
is a serious matter and the smaller the man the more serious the matter.

Without referring to supportive case-law it is fundamental that com-pulsory taking of a man's

property is a serious matter and the smaller the man the more serious the matter. Hearing him
before depriving him is both reasonable and preemptive of arbitrariness, and denial of this
administrative fairness is constitutional anathema except for good reasons. Save in real
urgency where public interest does not brook even the minimum time needed to give a
hearing land acquisition authorities should not, having regard to Arts. 14 (and 19), burke an
enquiry under Sec. 17 of the Act. Here a slumbering process, pending for years and suddenly
exciting itself into immediate forcible taking, makes a travesty of emergency power.

9) Anil Dey vs State Of West Bengal16

Facts

The writ petitioner who has moved for his from jail was detained by on order of the District
Magistrate 24 Parganas under Section 3(2) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act,
1971.This was challenged by petitioner since detention order was not in accordance with the
act.

Issues

1) whether the detention order of the statutory functionary, if based on a single instance, is
too filmy too alien or too remote to bear a reason able nexus with the twofold requirements of
subjective satisfaction and activity prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies sad services
essential to the community, and

16 AIR 1974 SC 832

16
(2) whether the factual components constituting the real grounds for detention have been
fairly and fully put across to the detenu so as to enable him to make an effective answer.

Judgment and reasoning

It is appropriate for & democratic government not merely to confine preventive detention to
serious cases but also to review periodically the need for the continuance of the Incarceration.
The rule of law and public conscience must be respected to the maxi mum extent risk-taking
permits, and we dismiss the present petition with the hopeful thought that the petitioner and
others like him will not languish in prison cells for a day longest than the administrator drinks
is absolutely necessary for the critical safety of society.

10)State Of Haryana vs Darshana Devi & Ors17

Facts
The respondents, a widow and her daughter, claimed compensation for the killing of their
sole bread-winner, by a Haryana State Transport bus, but could not afford to pay any court fee
on their claim. The High Court held that the exemptive provisions of Order XXXIII, CPC,
will apply to Accident Claims Tribunals, which have the trappings of the Civil Court.
Issue

Whether inability to pay court fee be a hindrance in the justice system?

Judgment

The poor shall not be priced out of the justice market by insistence on court-fee and refusal to
apply the exemptive provisions of Order XXXIII, C.P.C. SC expressed its distress mentioning
that the State of Haryana, mindless of the mandate of equal justice to the indigent under the
Magna Carta of our Republic, expressed in Article 14 and stressed in Art. 39A of the
Constitution, has sought leave to appeal against the order of the High Court which has rightly
extended the 'pauper' provisions to auto- accident claims.

Post Retirement Work

After retirement Justice Krishna Iyer took up peoples issues and championed causes of
human rights and civil liberties across the nation fearlessly speaking out against the powers

17 1979 AIR 855

17
that be, whether on repression in Nandigram or on the privation of Taslima Nasrin. In
retirement Justice Krishna Iyer sought to be the conscience-keeper of the Indian higher
judiciary. His post-retirement life was very busy. He was associated with a number of
academic and social organizations and became the part of various commissions and
committees of the Government. In 2002, he was part of the citizens panel that inquired into
the Gujarat riots along with retired justice P.B. Sawant and others. He was conferred with
Padma Vibhushan in the 1999. He had unsuccessfully contested to the election of the office
of President of India against Congress nominee late R. Venkataraman in 1987. He also
headed the Kerala Law Reform Commission in 2009. He had to his credit around 100 books,
mostly on law, and several articles in leading newspapers and magazines in the country as
well as overseas. After completing almost a century Justice Krishna Iyer left for his heavenly
abode on 4th December, 2014.

Conclusion

His deep and abiding respect for life and liberty is reflected in many of his judgments. His
concern for prisoners was indeed great. As a Minister in Kerala he had personal knowledge of
prison conditions. In several judgments, he made constructive and useful suggestions for
prison reforms and issued directions for providing more humane treatment to the prisoners
within the framework of the existing law.

18
Justice Krishna made sure that his judgments served the interests of the needy and not the
greedy. Along with Justice Bhagwati, Krishna Iyer laid foundation for the Public Interest
Litigation in India which continues to serve society at large. Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer, has
rightly observed that Law is not a brooding omnipotence in the sky but a pragmatic
instrument of social order. Judicial Process is a means of enforcing law. In the light of the
above discussion certainly it would be perfectly right to say that Judicial Process is an
instrument of social ordering.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

1) Shalja Chander,Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer on Fundamental Rights and

Directive Principles

Deep and deep publication, 2003

19
2) P P Rao, A Rare Judge, Journal Of Indian Law And Society ,Vol. 5

Secondary Sources

1) www.pib.nic.in

2) www.lawfarm.in

3) www.indianlawyers.wordpress.com

4) www.manupatra.com

5) www.openmagazine.com

6)www.epw.in

7)www.thehindu.com

20