Justice B.V. Nagarathna of the Supreme Court said judges must not shy away from making the right decision even if it could jeopardize their promotion or draw the ire of those in power. She stressed that courage and conviction are essential for meaningful judicial review.
Justice B.V. Nagarathna of the Supreme Court said judges must not shy away from making the right decision even if it could jeopardize their promotion or draw the ire of those in power, stressing that courage and conviction are essential for meaningful judicial review.
On Tuesday, Justice Nagarathna observed that “judicial independence goes beyond protection from political pressure, institutional intimidation, or popular demand; it also includes each judge’s freedom to disagree or take a different legal position from their colleagues on the bench.”
Justice Nagarathna said during an address at the Kerala High Court,
“Judicial independence is not exhausted by insulation from the political branches. It also requires that each judge be free to form and express his or her own considered view of the law, even when that view diverges from colleagues,”
Also Read: Judges Must Uphold Their Oath and Judicial Dharma: Justice B.V. Nagarathna
A prospective first woman Chief Justice of India in 2027, Justice Nagarathna is noted for her solitary dissents most prominently on the Constitution Bench in the demonetisation case and for registering an objection within the Supreme Court Collegium to a recommended appointment to the apex court in 2025.
She described separate and dissenting opinions as expressions of intellectual autonomy, explaining that issuing such views without fear or favor, solely to preserve institutional integrity, represents “the independence of the judiciary in its most enlightened form.”
In the Justice T.S. Krishnamoorthy Iyer Memorial Oration, she said
“A judicial opinion is not a negotiation document; it is an articulation of constitutional conviction. If the law, as we understood it, requires clarity even bluntness then dilution for the sake of consensus is a form of compromise we should be unwilling to make,”
Justice Nagarathna added that judicial independence also has subtler internal dimensions within the judiciary.
She stressed that judicial review must be supported by judicial independence, since courts often need to strike down legislation, curb executive actions, or nullify constitutional amendments passed by political majorities.
She said,
“These are not easy tasks. They often carry political consequences. Even if judges know that unpopular decisions may cost them elevation, extension, or bring them in the bad books of the powers that be. That should not come in the way of their decisions,”
She invoked Justice H.R. Khanna’s lone dissent in the ADM Jabalpur case as an example of defending personal liberty during the Emergency, even at the risk of losing the chance to become Chief Justice of India.
She warned that judicial accountability would be undermined if judges exercise review “cautiously, selectively, or not at all.”
Justice Nagarathna affirmed,
“Ultimately, it is the conviction, courage and independence of each judge which really matters. We, as judges, should always follow our oath of office which is our judicial Dharma and live up to it irrespective of its consequences on our career,”
She also highlighted structural protections: security of tenure shields judges from retaliation; transparent, structured appointment procedures limit partisan influence; and administrative and financial autonomy prevent indirect pressures.
She said,
“These safeguards do not make judges infallible, but they make principled adjudication possible,”