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

<p>In the 2nd <span class="key-term" data-definition="T.S. Krishnamoorthy Iyer Memorial Lecture — an annual lecture series at the Kerala High Court focusing on constitutional law and judicial philosophy (GS2: Polity)">T.S. Krishnamoorthy Iyer Memorial Lecture</span>, <strong>Justice BV Nagarathna</strong> 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.</p> <h3>Key Developments</h3> <ul> <li>Justice Nagarathna highlighted that <span class="key-term" data-definition="Judicial review — power of courts to examine the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions (GS2: Polity)">judicial review</span> often entails striking down laws, curbing executive excesses, and even overturning constitutional amendments.</li> <li>She invoked Justice H.R. Khanna’s dissent in <span class="key-term" data-definition="ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla — 1976 Supreme Court case that upheld suspension of fundamental rights during Emergency (GS2: Polity)">ADM Jabalpur</span> as a paradigm of constitutional courage, noting the personal cost he bore.</li> <li>The lecture linked the doctrine of <span class="key-term" data-definition="Basic Structure Doctrine — judicial principle that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution’s essential features such as secularism, federalism and judicial review (GS2: Polity)">basic structure</span> with <span class="key-term" data-definition="Transformative constitutionalism — interpretative approach that seeks to realise the Constitution’s promises of liberty, equality and fraternity in changing social contexts (GS2: Polity)">transformative constitutionalism</span>, emphasizing their joint reliance on an independent judiciary.</li> <li>She stressed that dissenting opinions are not signs of weakness but manifestations of internal judicial independence.</li> </ul> <h3>Important Facts & Historical Context</h3> <p>The evolution of the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Basic Structure Doctrine — judicial principle that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution’s essential features such as secularism, federalism and judicial review (GS2: Polity)">basic structure doctrine</span> began with cases like <span class="key-term" data-definition="Shankari Prasad v. Union of India — 1951 case that upheld Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution (GS2: Polity)">Shankari Prasad</span> and <span class="key-term" data-definition="I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab — 1967 case that declared Parliament could not amend fundamental rights (GS2: Polity)">I.C. Golak Nath</span>, culminating in the landmark <span class="key-term" data-definition="Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala — 1973 verdict that introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine (GS2: Polity)">Kesavananda Bharati</span> decision. Subsequent rulings such as <span class="key-term" data-definition="Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India — 1993 case reinforcing the basic structure by striking down amendments that threatened judicial review (GS2: Polity)">Minerva Mills</span> and <span class="key-term" data-definition="S.R. Bommai v. Union of India — 1994 case upholding federalism and limiting misuse of President’s Rule (GS2: Polity)">S.R. Bommai</span> entrenched the doctrine. </p> <p>Justice Khanna’s dissent in <span class="key-term" data-definition="ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla — 1976 Supreme Court case that upheld suspension of fundamental rights during Emergency (GS2: Polity)">ADM Jabalpur</span> was later vindicated by the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India — 2017 landmark judgment that reaffirmed the primacy of fundamental rights and overruled ADM Jabalpur (GS2: Polity)">Puttaswamy</span> verdict, underscoring that constitutional fidelity outlives political expediency.</p> <h3>UPSC Relevance</h3> <ul> <li>Understanding <span class="key-term" data-definition="Judicial review — power of courts to examine the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions (GS2: Polity)">judicial review</span> is essential for GS 2 (Polity) and Ethics (GS 4) questions on separation of powers.</li> <li>The <span class="key-term" data-definition="Basic Structure Doctrine — judicial principle that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution’s essential features such as secularism, federalism and judicial review (GS2: Polity)">basic structure doctrine</span> illustrates limits on parliamentary sovereignty, a frequent essay topic.</li> <li><span class="key-term" data-definition="Transformative constitutionalism — interpretative approach that seeks to realise the Constitution’s promises of liberty, equality and fraternity in changing social contexts (GS2: Polity)">Transformative constitutionalism</span> connects constitutional law with social justice, relevant for GS 4 (Ethics) and GS 2 (Polity) discussions on rights and welfare.</li> <li>Justice Khanna’s dissent exemplifies the role of judicial courage, a case study for ethics and integrity in public service.</li> </ul> <h3>Way Forward</h3> <p>For a robust constitutional democracy, aspirants should internalise three take‑aways:</p> <ol> <li><strong>Guard external independence</strong> – courts must remain insulated from political and popular pressures.</li> <li><strong>Preserve internal independence</strong> – judges should feel free to form and voice dissenting opinions, enriching jurisprudence.</li> <li><strong>Balance transformation with limits</strong> – while striving for social change, courts must respect the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Basic Structure Doctrine — judicial principle that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution’s essential features such as secularism, federalism and judicial review (GS2: Polity)">basic structure</span>, ensuring that reforms do not erode foundational constitutional values.</li> </ol> <p>Embedding these principles in the civil services mindset will aid future policymakers in respecting judicial autonomy while pursuing progressive governance.</p>