Supreme Court Justice BV Nagarathna said on Tuesday that “judicial independence” is not limited to insulation from political pressure, institutional intimidation or popular demand, but extends to the autonomy of each individual judge to dissent or deviate from the views of his colleagues on the bench.
“Judicial independence is not exhausted by isolation from the political branches. It also requires that each judge be free to form and express his own considered view of the law, even if that view differs from that of his colleagues,” Justice Nagarathna said in a speech at the Kerala High Court.
Justice Nagarathna, who is slated to be the first woman Chief Justice of India in 2027, is widely respected for her lone dissenting opinions, including in the Constitutional Court in the demonetisation case and her challenge in a Supreme Court bench to the recommendation to appoint a Supreme Court judge in 2025.
The judge said that separate and distinct opinions were expressions of intellectual autonomy and those expressions, given without fear or favor only for the sake of institutional integrity, were “judicial independence at its most enlightened”.
“A judicial opinion is not a negotiating document; it is an expression of constitutional conviction. If the law, as we understand it, requires clarity—even directness—then dilution for the sake of consensus is a form of compromise we should not be willing to make,” Justice Nagarathna said in her Justice TS Krishnamoorthy Iyer Memorial Oration.
She said that in addition to independence from outside influence, judicial independence also works subtly from within the judicial institution.
Justice Nagarathna emphasized that judicial review must be ensured by the independence of the courts. Judicial review has often required courts to invalidate legislation, limit executive action, or even strike down constitutional amendments passed by political majorities.
“These are not easy tasks. They often have political ramifications. Even judges know that unpopular decisions can cost them promotions, extensions or put them in the bad books of the powers that be. That should not come in the way of their decisions,” Justice Nagarathna said.
The Supreme Court judge referred to Justice HR Khanna’s separate dissent in the ADM Jabalpur case to protect personal liberty during the Emergency, even at the cost of India’s highest court.
Judicial accountability would suffer if judges chose to exercise their powers of judicial review “cautiously, selectively or not at all,” the judge said.
“At the end of the day, it is the conviction, courage and independence of each judge that really matters. We, as judges, should always follow and live by our oath, which is our judicial dharma, regardless of its implications for our careers,” Justice Nagarathna said.
The Supreme Court judge emphasized that security of tenure protects judges from retaliation. She noted that transparent and structured judicial appointment processes reduce partisan capture, while institutional autonomy, both administrative and financial, prevents indirect coercion.
“These safeguards do not make judges infallible but enable principled decision-making,” Justice Nagarathna said.
Published – 03 March 2026 21:01 IST
