Supreme Court Justice BV Nagarathna Stresses Judicial Courage, Basic Structure & Transformative Constitutionalism

In the 2nd T.S. Krishnamoorthy Iyer Memorial Lecture , Justice BV Nagarathna of the Supreme Court warned judges against letting career considerations dilute their constitutional duties. She argued that true judicial independence requires both freedom from external pressure and the intellectual liberty to dissent. Key Developments Justice Nagarathna highlighted that judicial review often entails striking down laws, curbing executive excesses, and even overturning constitutional amendments. She invoked Justice H.R. Khanna’s dissent in ADM Jabalpur as a paradigm of constitutional courage, noting the personal cost he bore. The lecture linked the doctrine of basic structure with transformative constitutionalism , emphasizing their joint reliance on an independent judiciary. She stressed that dissenting opinions are not signs of weakness but manifestations of internal judicial independence. Important Facts & Historical Context The evolution of the basic structure doctrine began with cases like Shankari Prasad and I.C. Golak Nath , culminating in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati decision. Subsequent rulings such as Minerva Mills and S.R. Bommai entrenched the doctrine. Justice Khanna’s dissent in ADM Jabalpur was later vindicated by the Puttaswamy verdict, underscoring that constitutional fidelity outlives political expediency. UPSC Relevance Understanding judicial review is essential for GS 2 (Polity) and Ethics (GS 4) questions on separation of powers. The basic structure doctrine illustrates limits on parliamentary sovereignty, a frequent essay topic. Transformative constitutionalism connects constitutional law with social justice, relevant for GS 4 (Ethics) and GS 2 (Polity) discussions on rights and welfare. Justice Khanna’s dissent exemplifies the role of judicial courage, a case study for ethics and integrity in public service. Way Forward For a robust constitutional democracy, aspirants should internalise three take‑aways: Guard external independence – courts must remain insulated from political and popular pressures. Preserve internal independence – judges should feel free to form and voice dissenting opinions, enriching jurisprudence. Balance transformation with limits – while striving for social change, courts must respect the basic structure , ensuring that reforms do not erode foundational constitutional values. Embedding these principles in the civil services mindset will aid future policymakers in respecting judicial autonomy while pursuing progressive governance.