Supreme Court Judge Justice BV Nagarathna BV Nagarathna said institutions like the Election Commission of India must remain independent, noting at Rajendra Prasad Memorial Lecture that insulated bodies such as the Comptroller and Auditor General of India and Finance Commission of India safeguard neutrality.
Supreme Court Justice BV Nagarathna said that institutions like the Election Commission of India (ECI) must operate independently for constitutional governance to survive.
Delivering the inaugural Dr. Rajendra Prasad Memorial Lecture at Chanakya National Law University, Patna, on the theme Constitutionalism beyond Rights: Why Structure Matters, Justice Nagarathna observed that agencies such as the ECI, the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), and the Finance Commission share a similar design: they are insulated, specialised bodies charged with overseeing areas where ordinary politics may not guarantee neutrality.
She said,
“It is of utmost importance that these institutions function independently and not to be influenced by political processes,”
On the ECI’s role in India’s democratic system, Justice Nagarathna stressed that elections are not merely periodic events but the means by which political authority is constituted.
She said,
“Our constitutional democracy has amply demonstrated smooth changes in government due to elections being held on a timely basis. Control over that process is, in effect, control over the conditions of political competition itself,”
She added,
“In TN Seshan v. Union of India, the Supreme Court recognised the Election Commission as a constitutional authority of high significance, entrusted with ensuring the integrity of elections. The concern, once again, was structural: if those who conduct elections are dependent on those who contest them, the neutrality of the process cannot be assured.”
Speaking about constitutionalism, Justice Nagarathna noted that the durability of rights depends on the integrity of the institutions that interpret and enforce them. A constitution can erode even while laws and rights appear intact if the underlying institutions are weakened.
She warned that constitutional breakdowns can occur “within legality” through a slow hollowing out of structure: rights may remain on paper, but the mechanisms that enforce them decline.
She added,
“The unmistakable lesson of history is that constitutional collapse occurs through the disabling of its structure and the violation of rights merely follows. The dismantling of structure, in turn, occurs when institutions stop checking each other. In that moment, elections may continue, courts may function, laws may be enacted by the parliament; and yet, power is effectively not restrained,”
Justice Nagarathna said State governments are not subordinate to the Union except where the Constitution expressly provides, and therefore must be treated with the respect and fairness their constitutional status warrants, regardless of which political parties govern them.
She said,
“There cannot be a pick and choose approach vis-à-vis the States when it is in the realm of development programmes for the citizens of a State. Equity as a matter of a fair approach must be adopted,”
She cautioned that growing conflicts between States, or between the Centre and States, are harmful to the nation.
She remarked,
“This creates a dent in constitutional form of governance which must be avoided always for, the strength of the nation is based on constitutional foundation and principles,”
Justice Nagarathna argued that a mature federation should not default to treating other constitutional units as adversaries; instead, it should prioritise dialogue, negotiation, and mediation.
Also Read : “Throw Him Out, Remove Him” | Justice B.V. Nagarathna Express Displeasure Over Inappropriate Attire During Virtual Hearings
She highlighted,
“When States begin filing suits against one another, or against the Centre, it reflects not strength, but a weakening of cooperative federalism. Issues such as border disputes or water-sharing disputes are too complex, sensitive, and enduring to be reduced to adversarial litigation before the Courts alone,”
She added,
“There cannot be a pick and choose approach vis-à-vis the States when it is in the realm of development programmes for the citizens of a State.”
On the functioning of the legislature and executive, she said the Constitution’s health depends on whether legislatures genuinely deliberate on proposed laws rather than merely endorsing them, and whether the executive governs within legal limits rather than above them.
She emphasised that the Constitution places trust not in any single organ but in a system where institutions check and constrain each other.
She added,
“The result of this horizontal arrangement is not efficiency but friction at times. It is designed to prevent unchecked and untoward outcomes. It ensures that decisions are not the product of impulse or concentration of power in majorities,”
Justice Nagarathna also observed that the judiciary’s authority ultimately relies on executive compliance, but that does not lessen its significance.
She said,
“The judicial authority is real. Its role is central and balancing. Its power is significant, but only neutral and not self-executing,”
She stressed that courts must remain rooted in constitutional discipline, which includes independence.
Concluding her lecture, Justice Nagarathna warned that the Constitution is not self-sustaining and must be upheld through consistent practice, institutional fidelity, and restraint in exercising power.
She emphasized,
“Power, no matter however legitimate in its source, must always remain answerable,”