Institutions like ECI must function independently: Supreme Court Justice BV Nagarathna

Supreme Court Justice BV Nagarathna on Saturday said that institutions such as the Election Commission of India (ECI) must function independently if constitutional governance is to remain intact.

She was delivering the 1st Dr. Rajendra Prasad Memorial Lecture at Chanakya National Law University, Patna, on the theme Constitutionalism beyond Rights: Why Structure Matters.

Justice Nagarathna said that the ECI, Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) and the Finance Commission share a common design logic that they are insulated, specialised, and tasked with overseeing domains where the ordinary political process may be insufficient to ensure neutrality. 

"It is of utmost importance that these institutions function independently and not to be influenced by political processes," she said.

Commenting on the role of ECI in India's democracy, Justice Nagarathna said that the elections are not merely periodic events but a mechanism through which political authority is constituted.

"Our constitutional democracy has amply demonstrated smooth changes in government due to elections being held on a timely basis. Control over that process is, in effect, control over the conditions of political competition itself," she said.

She added,

"In TN Seshan v. Union of India, the Supreme Court recognised the Election Commission as a constitutional authority of high significance, entrusted with ensuring the integrity of elections. The concern, once again, was structural: if those who conduct elections are dependent on those who contest them, the neutrality of the process cannot be assured." 

Speaking about constitutionalism, Justice Nagarathana also said that the durability of rights depends on the integrity of the institutions that interpret and enforce them. 

She added that a constitutional breakdown can occur even within "legality" through gradual hollowing-out of structure while rights exist formally untouched. 

"The unmistakable lesson of history is that constitutional collapse occurs through the disabling of its structure and the violation of rights merely follows. The dismantling of structure, in turn, occurs when institutions stop checking each other. In that moment, elections may continue, courts may function, laws may be enacted by the parliament; and yet, power is effectively not restrained because the structural discipline no longer exists," she added.

Speaking on the Centre-State relations, Justice Nagarathna said that the State governments are not subordinate to the Union government except as stipulated under the Constitution.

Therefore, the State governments must be accorded the treatment that is due to them irrespective of the political parties that may be in power, she undercored.

She also cautioned against unequal treatment of States.

"There cannot be a pick and choose approach vis-à-vis the States when it is in the realm of development programmes for the citizens of a State. Equity as a matter of a fair approach must be adopted," she said.

In this context, she remarked that that increase in conflict between the States of the Union or between the Centre and the States does not augur well for the nation. 

"This creates a dent in constitutional form of governance which must be avoided always for, the strength of the nation is based on constitutional foundation and principles," the judge remarked.

Justice Nagarathna also said that a "mature federation" ought not rush to courts as adversaries; instead it should turn to dialogue, negotiation, and mediation.

"When States begin filing suits against one another, or against the Centre, it reflects not strength, but a weakening of cooperative federalism. Issues such as border disputes or water-sharing disputes are too complex, sensitive, and enduring to be reduced to adversarial litigation before the Courts alone," she underscored.

On legislative and executive functioning, Justice Nagarathna also said that the health of the Constitution depends on “whether the legislature deliberates on forthcoming laws rather than merely stamps approval” and “whether the executive governs within law rather than over it.”

She also emphasized that the Constitution does not repose ultimate trust in any single institution but instead relies on a system in which each institution restrains the others.

"The result of this horizontal arrangement is not efficiency but friction at times. It is designed to prevent unchecked and untoward outcomes. It ensures that decisions are not the product of impulse or concentration of power in majorities," she added.

Justice Nagarathana further said that the judicial authority ultimately depends on compliance by the executive. But this does not diminish the authority of the judiciary, she added. 

"The judicial authority is real. Its role is central and balancing. Its power is significant, but only neutral and not self-executing," she said.

She also emphasized that the courts "must remain anchored, at all times, in the discipline of the Constitution which includes independence." 

Concluding her address, Justice Nagarathna said the Constitution “is not self-sustaining” and must be preserved through “practice, through institutional fidelity, and through restraint in the exercise of power."

"Power, no matter however legitimate in its source, must always remain answerable," she emphasized.