This new year saw a sensational judgment in the beginning from the apex court itself and with that once again one name is ringing loudly in the masses, Justice Bangalore Venkataramiah Nagarathna. Renowned for her unwavering commitment to the principles of justice and equality, Justice Nagarathna has emerged as a formidable force in the legal landscape of India. In a profession often dominated by men, she stands as a testament to the power of dedication, intellect, and fearlessness.
And, yes, we are discussing the remission order decision in Bilkis Yakub Rasool vs Union of India. A story about a woman survivor, Bilkis Bano, who rose above the adversities of life, accompanied by advocate on record Shobha Gupta, who was recently designated as a ‘senior advocate’ by our respected Chief Justice of India, D. Y. Chandrachud, and a woman with a steel spine who oversaw the judgment, Justice B V Nagarathna. This decision is a work of art that examines every aspect of the case in great depth, including where the Supreme Court made an incorrect decision, how the Gujarat government abuses its power, and the convicts’ false methods in presenting themselves as innocent. Bilkis Bano had previously encountered many difficulties, but her challenge to the Gujarat government’s remission, along with the party’s dominance at the center, sparked the harshest outrage yet. She demonstrated unusual bravery and courage in going up against the prisoners who not only wronged her but were also supported by both the central and state governments.
However, it takes a different kind of tenacious fortitude to pass judgment on those same people by sticking to one’s truth and a sense of justice, as Justice B V Nagarathna has properly demonstrated in this instance. The decision, in my opinion, was a historic decision for a variety of reasons, but most notably because a bench of the Supreme Court recognized the error of another bench of the same court. Along with that, the highest court panel ruled that remission orders issued by a state government were arbitrary and illegitimate, and it addressed the core issue by acknowledging that petitions under Article 32 might assure expanded access to justice, including rapid remedies.
However, limiting Justice B V Nagarthna’s career to this judgment would be unfair to her. Justice E. S. Venkataramiah, the late Chief Justice of India’s daughter, has been garnering respect and praise quite literally since she enrolled in the Bar Council of Karnataka in 1987, specializing in constitutional and commercial law. From there on she went to become first an additional judge and then a permanent judge of the Karnataka High Court. Upon her being elevated as a Supreme court judge in 2021, news got circulated that she might be the first woman CJI in 2027, one of the reasons why her every judgment and opinion has been in the news lately.
Justice Nagarathna’s rise to the highest court has been defined by tenacity and boldness. Breaking over the glass ceiling, she has debunked prejudices and demonstrated that gender is not a barrier to success in the legal profession. Throughout her career, she has faced obstacles head on, unaffected by societal norms or institutional biases. One of her most well-known decisions is from a dissenting judgment in the case known as the ‘Demonetisation case’, i.e. Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India.
This is the same demonetisation that occurred in 2016 when the union withdrew all 500 and 1000 currency notes off the face of the earth. As much as the endeavor to eliminate black money and corruption by the union government was applauded, the implementation fell straight on its face.
In a petition challenging the demonetisation of Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000 currency notes in 2016, the Constitution Bench of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer, B.R Gavai, A.S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian, and B.V. Nagarathna upheld the Centre’s 2016 demonetisation scheme with a 4:1 majority, ruling that demonetisation was proportional to the Union’s stated objectives and was carried out in a reasonable manner. In her dissenting opinion, Justice Nagarathna argued that the 2016 demonetisation exercise was unlawful only on legal grounds, despite the scheme’s ‘noble goals’.
One of the primary questions that arose before the bench was whether the Supreme Court can examine the union’s 2016 demonetisation program. As such, Justice Nagarathna in her dissenting judgment concluded that the question here was one of interpretation of law and power of the Union and RBI under the RBI Act, and as such the apex court was more than qualified to review the same.
Along with this ruling, Justice Nagarathna ruled that records given by the RBI stating ‘as desired by the Central government’ demonstrate the RBI’s lack of independence in the subject. She noted that this demonstrates that the plan to carry out the 2016 demonetisation effort came from the Union and not the RBI. The RBI only provided its view as requested by the Union, which cannot be regarded as a recommendation by the RBI’s Central Board. Furthermore, based on the fact that the entire procedure was completed within 24 hours, Justice Nagarathna concluded that the RBI did not apply its mind before carrying out the demonetisation activity.
In her dissenting opinion, she believes that if the Union considers secrecy to be a crucial component of achieving its aims through demonetisation, such a scheme can be implemented by an Ordinance that can later be supported by Parliamentary legislation. A severe situation, such as demonetisation in 2016, cannot be handled simply by making a notification, as the Union did.
Another famous judgment delivered by Justice Nagarhtna was in the case of Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh, dealing with Ministers and the freedom to make ‘hurtful’ statements, which arose after SP leader Azam Khan called the unfortunate incident of 2016 gang-rape of a minor and her mother in Uttar Pradesh a “political conspiracy only and nothing else”. The matter was placed in front of a constitutional bench of Justices S Abdul Nazeer, AS Bopanna, BR Gavai, V Ramasubramanian, and B V Nagarathna, who gave the verdict on the issue of freedom of speech of public functionaries and whether the right to life and personal liberty of citizens impedes the same, and has ruled against imposing further restrictions on freedom of speech of Ministers. In this case Justice Nagarthna authored a separate judgment and gave a partial dissent as compared to the other judges.
Whereas Justices S A Nazeer, B R Gavai, A S Bopanna, and V Ramasubramanian ruled separately that a minister’s statement cannot be attributed “vicariously” to the government, Justice B V Nagarathna ruled that hate speeches that are both insulting and hurtful can be vicariously attributed to the government if a minister makes disparaging statements in his “official capacity”. This is just a sample of the judgments that Justice Nagarthna dealt with after entering the Supreme Court, but her true recognition came while she was still at the Karnataka High Court.
One of her important decisions emphasizes the importance of regulating electronic media. In her ruling from 2012, she wrote:
“While truthful dissemination of information is an essential requirement of any broadcasting channel, sensationalism in the form of ‘Breaking News’, ‘Flash News’ or in any other form must be curbed.”
She encouraged the Centre to establish an autonomous and formal system for regulating broadcast media. In a 2019 decision, Nagarathna declared that a temple is not a commercial institution, hence its employees are not entitled to gratuity under the Payments of Gratuity Act, but they can receive equal benefits under the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowment Act. She also introduced mid-day lunches in Karnataka schools as a fundamental right. With a tenure of 13 years in the Karnataka High court she has almost dismissed as many as 23,020 cases, which is quite marvelous.
One of the most notable aspects of Justice Nagarathna’s tenure has been her bold attitude to delivering decisions that uphold the values of justice and fairness. Her verdicts are distinguished by precise legal reasoning, a thorough awareness of the subtleties of the law, and a strong adherence to constitutional values. Most importantly, her devotion to judicial independence in the face of constant political and external pressure has distinguished her from the majority of judges to date. Her unwavering commitment to defending the rule of law has established her as a defender of justice, instilling public trust in the judiciary as a foundation of democracy. And as such being a woman lawyer, it would be a privilege and honor to see her accept the position of Chief Justice of India in the near future, whenever that day comes.
In conclusion, I’d like to borrow a few words from the woman who no longer needs to be mentioned while we eagerly await the continuous influence of her wisdom, compassion, and dedication on the path to a more enlightened and equitable legal system.
“Our country India, or Bharat, is not just a piece in history or geography. It is a nation of over a billion people with over a billion dreams. I have often wondered what binds us together despite the innumerable diversities. It is my firm conviction that one of the binding factors is the Indian Constitution — a legal system committed to rule of law and an organized hierarchy of courts with a Supreme Court at the apex.”
