Judicial Independence and Supremacy of Law: Justice BV Nagarathna’s Key Address at O.P. Jindal Global University

Supreme Court judge Justice B.V. Nagarathna delivered a significant address at the international convention titled “The Independence of Judiciary: Comparative Perspective on Rights, Institutions and Citizens” held at O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat. Her remarks highlighted the core elements that safeguard the rule of law in a constitutional democracy—judicial independence and supremacy of the law.

---

Judicial Independence and Supremacy of Law: The Twin Guarantees of Rule of Law

Justice Nagarathna emphasised that judicial independence and the supremacy of law function together to ensure that the rule of law remains insulated from political pressures. According to her, insulating judges from extraneous and political influences is essential to preserve the integrity of judicial decision-making.

She reiterated that these two principles form the foundation of a democratic legal system and must never be taken for granted.

---

Faith in the Constitution and Faith in the Courts

Justice Nagarathna explained that the rule of law is built on a dual faith:

1. Faith in the Constitution—as a higher law binding even on democratically elected legislatures. This higher law protects individual rights and liberties from majoritarian or governmental tyranny.

2. Faith in the Courts—as institutions capable of enforcing constitutional limits impartially, independently, and fearlessly.

This dual faith, she noted, makes judicial review the hallmark of the rule of law.

---

The Role of Judicial Review

Judicial review forms an essential pillar of a constitutional democracy where law, not political discretion, determines legitimacy. Justice Nagarathna underlined that judicial review strengthens judicial independence and makes its preservation indispensable.

She drew attention to how Indian courts have consistently safeguarded constitutional values by exercising judicial review against excesses of legislative or executive action.

---

Kesavananda Bharati Case: The Model of Judicial Independence

Justice Nagarathna referred to the landmark Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) judgment, where a 13-judge bench of the Supreme Court upheld the Basic Structure Doctrine.

She highlighted two dimensions of judicial independence reflected in the case:

• Independence in decision-making: Each judge exercised independent reasoning.

• Institutional independence: The bench functioned collectively as a single institution committed to constitutional integrity and pluralism.

This case illustrates how the judiciary safeguards the Constitution’s core identity even against legislative majorities.

---

Basic Structure Doctrine and Its Relationship with Judicial Independence

Justice Nagarathna explained that the Basic Structure Doctrine emerged from constitutional pluralism. It ensures that certain fundamental constitutional principles—such as rule of law, separation of powers, and judicial independence—cannot be amended away by Parliament.

This doctrine serves as a constitutional shield against arbitrary or politically motivated attempts to alter basic constitutional values.

---

Judicial Independence as a Right of Citizens

According to Justice Nagarathna, the framers of the Constitution viewed judicial independence primarily as a right of the citizen, not a privilege of judges.

Preserving judicial independence ensures:

• Access to fair adjudication

• Protection against arbitrary state actions

• Maintenance of constitutional supremacy

• Assurance that fundamental rights are meaningfully enforceable

Thus, safeguarding judicial independence is integral to protecting the rights and liberties of all citizens.

---

Judicial Conduct and Public Perception

Justice Nagarathna emphasised that judicial independence must not merely exist—it must be perceived by the public as beyond suspicion.

She highlighted that:

• Judges must maintain impeccable personal conduct

• Independence is reflected not only in judgments but also in private conduct

• Ethical restraint is just as critical as decision-making neutrality

Judges must remain free from political influence and personal bias in all aspects.

---

Impartiality, Insularity, and Institutional Position of Courts

Justice Nagarathna identified three key components of judicial independence:

1. Impartiality — relating to judicial attitudes, beliefs, and behaviour toward political or social actors.

2. Insularity — ensuring courts are not exploited as arenas for political objectives.

3. Institutional Position — reflecting the judiciary’s autonomy within the larger political system and its functional relationship with other branches of government.

She noted that judicial independence is ultimately shaped by the courage, conviction, and intellectual freedom of individual judges.

---

Commitment to Past Precedents and Constitutional Stability

Justice Nagarathna emphasized that the rule of law depends on institutional stability. Courts must uphold past precedents while adapting to evolving societal needs. Judicial independence is central to maintaining this balance between tradition and progress.

---

Statutory, Constitutional and Judicial References

Constitutional Provisions

• Article 50 – Separation of the judiciary from the executive

• Articles 124–147 – Independence of Supreme Court judges, appointment, tenure, removal

• Articles 214–231 – High Court structure and independence

• Article 13 – Judicial review of laws

• Article 32 & Article 226 – Power of courts to enforce fundamental rights

• Article 368 – Limits on constitutional amendments (as interpreted in Basic Structure cases)

Judicial Precedents

• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) – Basic Structure Doctrine; judicial independence as basic structure

• S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) – Judges’ appointments and independence

• Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (NJAC Case) (2015) – Judicial independence as basic structure; struck down NJAC

• Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) – Judicial review as part of basic structure

• Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) – Constitutional morality, liberty, and rule of law principles

• Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) – Limited amending powers; supremacy of Constitution

Statutory Framework Supporting Independence

• Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Protects authority and functioning of courts

• Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 – Framework for removal of judges

• Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 – Immunity for acts done in judicial capacity

---

Conclusion

Justice B.V. Nagarathna’s address powerfully restates a foundational constitutional truth: judicial independence and the supremacy of law are indispensable to the survival of rule of law.

Through references to landmark jurisprudence, especially the Kesavananda Bharati judgment, she reinforced that courts must remain insulated from political pressures and maintain institutional integrity. Judicial independence is not merely a structural principle but a lived constitutional value—protecting citizens, preserving rights, and sustaining democracy itself.

---