Supreme Court judge Justice B.V. Nagarathna has said that judges must decide cases correctly even if such decisions affect their chances of elevation or invite displeasure from those in power. Speaking at the 2nd T.S. Krishnamoorthy Iyer Memorial Lecture at the Kerala High Court, she said courage and conviction remain essential to the exercise of judicial review.
Justice Nagarathna said judicial review often forces courts to strike down laws, restrain executive action, and, in some situations, invalidate constitutional amendments supported by political majorities. She said these are difficult tasks and may carry political consequences. Yet, she stressed that such concerns must never shape a judge’s decision-making.
Justice Nagarathna on judicial independence
Justice Nagarathna described the judicial oath as a judge’s “judicial dharma.” She said judges must honour that oath regardless of personal or professional consequences. If judges start worrying about career outcomes, she warned, judicial review may become symbolic rather than a real constitutional safeguard.
She said judicial independence has both external and internal dimensions. Externally, a judge must remain free from political pressure, institutional intimidation, and popular demand. Internally, a judge must also have the freedom to form and express an independent view of the law, even when that view differs from colleagues. In her words, separate and dissenting opinions reflect intellectual autonomy and show judicial independence in its most enlightened form.
Justice H.R. Khanna’s dissent as an example
To explain constitutional courage, Justice Nagarathna referred to Justice H.R. Khanna’s dissent in ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla during the Emergency. She noted that while the majority held that even the right to move courts for enforcement of personal liberty stood suspended, Justice Khanna disagreed and held that the Constitution did not permit the State to extinguish the right to life and liberty even during an Emergency.
Justice Nagarathna said that dissent came at a serious personal cost because Justice Khanna was superseded for the office of Chief Justice of India. However, she noted that his position was later vindicated in constitutional law when the Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India overruled ADM Jabalpur and reaffirmed that fundamental rights cannot depend on executive will.
Basic structure doctrine and transformative constitutionalism
The lecture focused on “Transformative Constitutionalism and the Basic Structure Doctrine.” Justice Nagarathna traced the development of the basic structure doctrine through decisions such as Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India, I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, and Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala. She said the Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati made it clear that while Parliament may amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its basic structure.
She also referred to later rulings such as Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India and S.R. Bommai v. Union of India. According to her, these decisions reinforced that constitutional supremacy, secularism, federalism, separation of powers, and judicial review form part of the Constitution’s foundational identity.
Justice Nagarathna explained that transformative constitutionalism seeks to realise the Constitution’s promises of liberty, equality, and fraternity over time. At the same time, she said transformation must operate within constitutional limits. In that framework, the basic structure doctrine prevents destruction of foundational guarantees, while transformative constitutionalism keeps constitutional commitments responsive to present realities.
Why the speech matters
Justice Nagarathna said the strength of constitutional governance depends not only on doctrines and institutions but also on the moral fibre of judges. She said judges must be ready to invalidate unconstitutional laws, restrain unlawful executive action, and preserve the Constitution’s identity even when doing so comes at a personal cost. Her speech serves as a direct reminder that judicial independence depends on both institutional protection and individual courage.
Conclusion
Justice Nagarathna’s lecture at the Kerala High Court placed judicial independence at the centre of constitutional governance. Her remarks underlined that judges must follow their oath without fear of career consequences, political displeasure, or institutional pressure. In doing so, she linked judicial review, the basic structure doctrine, and transformative constitutionalism to a single principle: constitutional duty must prevail over personal cost.
