JUSTICE NAGARATHNA: JUDGES MUST NOT FEAR RULING FEARLESSLY, EVEN IF IT RISKS PROMOTION OR UPSETS THE POWERFUL:

Justice BV Nagarathna of the Supreme Court emphasized that judges must never hesitate to deliver the right decision, even when doing so might jeopardize their prospects of elevation, extension of tenure, or invite displeasure from those in power. Speaking at the 2nd T.S. Krishnamoorthy Iyer Memorial Lecture delivered at the Kerala High Court on March 3, 2026, she asserted that courage and conviction form the bedrock of meaningful judicial review.

She pointed out that judicial review often compels courts to strike down legislation, restrain executive actions, and occasionally set aside constitutional amendments passed by political majorities. Such tasks are inherently difficult and frequently carry political repercussions. Judges may be acutely aware that an unpopular ruling could adversely affect their career advancement or place them in disfavour with influential authorities. Nevertheless, Justice Nagarathna stressed that this awareness must never obstruct the faithful discharge of constitutional duty. The oath of office constitutes a judge’s judicial dharma, which must be upheld regardless of personal or professional consequences. If fear of career repercussions influences judicial decisions, the power of judicial review risks becoming merely symbolic rather than genuinely substantive.

Justice Nagarathna held up Justice H.R. Khanna as the epitome of constitutional courage. During the Emergency, in the landmark case of ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, the Supreme Court’s majority ruled that the suspension of fundamental rights during an Emergency also barred individuals from approaching courts to enforce personal liberty. Justice Khanna dissented, maintaining that the Constitution did not permit the State to extinguish the right to life and personal liberty even in times of Emergency. His principled stand came at great personal cost—he was superseded for appointment as Chief Justice of India. Yet history and subsequent jurisprudence vindicated him. The Supreme Court later expressly overruled ADM Jabalpur in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, reaffirming that fundamental rights cannot be left to the mercy of executive discretion.

Judicial independence, she explained, encompasses two essential dimensions. Externally, it demands complete freedom from political pressure, institutional intimidation, or popular demands. Internally, it requires that every judge retain the autonomy to form and articulate their own reasoned view of the law, even when it diverges from the opinions of colleagues. Separate and dissenting judgments represent intellectual independence in its purest form. A judicial opinion is not a document open to negotiation but a clear expression of constitutional conviction. Where the law demands clarity and firmness, diluting reasoning merely to achieve consensus amounts to an unacceptable compromise.

Delivering her lecture on “Transformative Constitutionalism and the Basic Structure Doctrine,” Justice Nagarathna traced the evolution of the basic structure doctrine from early decisions such as Shankari Prasad and Golak Nath to its definitive articulation in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala. In that case, the Supreme Court held that while Parliament possesses wide amending power, it cannot alter or destroy the Constitution’s basic structure. Later rulings in Minerva Mills and S.R. Bommai further entrenched elements such as constitutional supremacy, secularism, federalism, separation of powers, and judicial review as inviolable features.

She described transformative constitutionalism as a commitment to progressively realize the Constitution’s promises of liberty, equality, and fraternity, dismantling historical injustices and reshaping social relations over time. However, such transformation must remain bounded by constitutional limits. The basic structure doctrine prevents change from eroding foundational guarantees, while transformative constitutionalism ensures those guarantees remain dynamic and responsive to contemporary realities. Both doctrines ultimately depend on a fearless and independent judiciary exercising judicial review to police the boundaries of power and translate constitutional values into enforceable rights.

In conclusion, Justice Nagarathna underscored that the strength of constitutional governance rests not merely on doctrines or institutional frameworks but on the moral courage of judges. They must stand ready to invalidate unconstitutional laws, check unlawful executive actions, and safeguard the Constitution’s core identity even at personal cost, thereby ensuring that judicial review remains a living instrument of justice rather than a mere formality.