Sonipat, November 29, 2025 – In an era where political pressures and societal expectations increasingly intersect with legal frameworks, the independence of the judiciary has emerged as the bedrock of democratic governance. On Saturday, Supreme Court judge Justice B V Nagarathna delivered a compelling address emphasizing that judicial independence and the supremacy of law work in tandem to ensure that the rule of law remains inviolable, safeguarding the Constitution and the rights of citizens.

Speaking at the international convention titled “The Independence of Judiciary: Comparative Perspective on Rights, Institutions and Citizens” held at OP Jindal Global University, Justice Nagarathna highlighted the indispensable role of an independent judiciary in upholding the constitutional ethos. The event also witnessed the inauguration of the world’s largest moot court, Nyayabhyasa Mandapam, alongside the International Mooting Academy for Advocacy, Negotiation, Dispute Adjudication, Arbitration, and Resolution, underscoring the university’s commitment to fostering legal excellence and practical skills among students.

The Interplay of Judicial Independence and Supremacy of Law

Justice Nagarathna began her address by outlining the conceptual relationship between judicial independence and the supremacy of law. “Insulating judges from political and extraneous influence is vital to ensuring that the rule of law is not eroded,” she said, stressing that both these principles are crucial underpinnings of a functional democracy. According to her, the independence of the judiciary is not merely an institutional privilege for judges but a fundamental right of the citizens, guaranteeing the impartial application of justice.

The judge elaborated that the rule of law rests on a dual faith: first, in the Constitution itself, which binds even democratically elected legislatures, and second, in courts—constitutional or ordinary—as the most effective guarantors of the enforcement of constitutional norms. She emphasized that this dual faith underlies judicial review, ensuring that laws and executive actions adhere to constitutional principles.

“The rule of law contemplates a vision based on faith—faith in the Constitution binding all branches of government, and faith in courts to uphold that higher law independently and impartially,” Justice Nagarathna explained. She argued that judicial review, when exercised by independent and impartial judges, is the hallmark of the rule of law in any democracy.

Lessons from the Kesavananda Bharati Case

Drawing on historical precedent, Justice Nagarathna referenced the landmark 1973 Kesavananda Bharati case, which laid down the “basic structure doctrine” of the Indian Constitution. This doctrine, she noted, exemplifies the dual facets of judicial independence: independence in decision-making and institutional independence.

“The thirteen judges of the Kesavananda Bench were independent in their reasoning yet united as an institution committed to preserving the Constitution’s capacity to reflect plural voices within national unity,” she said. The judgment underscored that judicial independence is preserved when courts remain forums of reason, rationality, and inquiry, free from external influence or internal predilections. The emergence of the basic structure doctrine, she argued, was a direct consequence of this pluralism and institutional integrity.

Justice Nagarathna observed that the framers of the Constitution viewed judicial independence not as a privilege for judges but as a right of citizens, ensuring that justice is administered without fear or favor. She stressed that the sustained preservation of this right is essential to maintaining the rule of law, which is ultimately a covenant between the state and its citizens.

Judicial Conduct Beyond Lawfulness

The Supreme Court judge also reflected on the ethical dimensions of judicial independence, emphasizing that a judge’s conduct must transcend mere lawfulness. Independence, she noted, is demonstrated not only in decisions delivered from the bench but also in the private conduct and personal integrity of judges.

“Judicial independence is preserved not by what we say in our judgments or in our defenses, but by what we refuse to do in our private conduct,” Justice Nagarathna said. She highlighted the necessity for political insularity, noting that judges must remain impervious to partisan influence to ensure that courts are not co-opted for political aims.

In defining judicial independence, the judge referred to three interrelated components: impartiality, insularity, and institutional positioning. Impartiality relates to the judge’s attitudes, beliefs, and conduct vis-à-vis social and political actors. Insularity ensures that courts do not become instruments for realizing political objectives. Finally, institutional positioning emphasizes the functional relationship of courts with other branches of government while maintaining operational and intellectual autonomy.

Rule of Law Requires Stability and Institutional Commitment

Justice Nagarathna emphasized that the rule of law relies on stability and an institutional commitment to balance respect for precedent with the capacity to adapt to changing circumstances. “Rule of law hinges on stability and requires an institutional commitment to respect the past while moving towards the future,” she noted. She underscored that judicial independence encompasses intellectual and moral dimensions—the freedom to reason, humility to listen, and the duty to contribute thoughtfully to legal discourse, particularly when courts confront complex or novel challenges.

The judge also stressed the importance of public perception in preserving judicial independence. Courts must not only be independent in fact but also be perceived as impartial and incorruptible. This perception ensures public confidence in the judiciary, reinforcing the legitimacy of its decisions and its role as a guardian of constitutional values.

Judicial Independence as a Citizen’s Right

Justice Nagarathna reiterated that the independence of the judiciary is fundamentally a citizen-centric principle. By ensuring that judges are insulated from political pressures, the judiciary protects individual liberties, minority rights, and democratic norms. It is through this insulation that courts can act as arbiters of justice, preventing arbitrary exercise of power and preserving the rule of law.

She concluded by reflecting on the broader societal responsibility of the judiciary, stating, “Judicial independence is ultimately the conviction, courage, and moral fortitude of individual judges who decide matters before a court of law. For the judiciary, this independence is not only institutional—it is intellectual and moral: the freedom to reason, the humility to listen, and the duty to contribute to discourse, especially when the court confronts difficult questions.”

Conclusion: Upholding the Pillars of Democracy

Justice B V Nagarathna’s address at OP Jindal Global University highlighted that the principles of judicial independence and supremacy of law are interdependent, working together to uphold the rule of law. By drawing lessons from landmark cases such as Kesavananda Bharati and reflecting on the moral and institutional dimensions of judicial conduct, she underscored that the judiciary is not merely a passive interpreter of law but an active guarantor of constitutional governance.

In an age of rapid political and social change, the judiciary’s independence, integrity, and impartiality remain essential to preserving democratic norms. For citizens, these principles are not just theoretical ideals—they are the practical guarantees that their rights, liberties, and constitutional protections are safeguarded against erosion by transient political forces.

Through her nuanced exposition, Justice Nagarathna reaffirmed that judicial independence, coupled with the supremacy of law, forms the cornerstone of democracy, ensuring that justice is administered fairly, consistently, and without fear or favor. The address served as both a reflection on the past and a guiding framework for the future, reminding legal professionals and citizens alike that the rule of law is preserved not merely by statutes and institutions, but by the courage, integrity, and moral compass of those entrusted to uphold it.

---