Judicial independence extends to freedom of a judge to dissent or diverge from colleagues, says J. Nagarathna

Supreme Court judge B.V. Nagarathna on Tuesday said ‘judicial independence’ was not limited to insulation from political pressure, institutional intimidation or popular demand, but extended to every individual judge’s autonomy to disagree or diverge from the opinions of his or her colleagues in the court.

“Judicial independence is not exhausted by insulation from the political branches. It also requires that each judge be free to form and express his or her own considered view of the law, even when that view diverges from colleagues,” Justice Nagarathna said in an address at the Kerala High Court.

Justice Nagarathna, who is in line to be the first woman Chief Justice of India in 2027, is widely respected for her lone dissents, including on the Constitution Bench in the demonetisation case, and her objection in the Supreme Court Collegium to the recommendation for appointment of a judge to the apex court in 2025.

The judge said separate and dissenting opinions were manifestations of intellectual autonomy, and these expressions, given without fear or favour for the sake of institutional integrity alone, was the “independence of the judiciary in its most enlightened form.”

“A judicial opinion is not a negotiation document; it is an articulation of constitutional conviction. If the law, as we understood it, requires clarity – even bluntness – then dilution for the sake of consensus is a form of compromise we should be unwilling to make,” Justice Nagarathna said in her Justice T.S. Krishnamoorthy Iyer Memorial Oration.

She said besides independence from external influence, judicial independence also operated subtly from within the judicial institution.

Justice Nagarathna underscored that judicial review must be underwritten by judicial independence. Judicial review frequently required courts to invalidate legislation, restrain executive action or even set aside constitutional amendments enacted by political majorities.

“These are not easy tasks. They often carry political consequences. Even if judges know that unpopular decisions may cost them elevation, extension, or bring 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 H.R. Khanna’s solo dissent in the ADM Jabalpur case to protect personal liberty in the time of the Emergency even at the ultimate cost of his Chief Justiceship of India.

Judicial accountability would suffer if judges choose to exercise their judicial review powers “cautiously, selectively, or not at all,” the judge said.

“Ultimately, it is the conviction, courage and independence of each judge which really matters. We, as judges, should always follow our oath of office which is our judicial Dharma and live up to it irrespective of its consequences on our career,” Justice Nagarathna said.

The apex court judge emphasised that security of tenure insulates judges from retaliation. She noted that transparent and structured appointment processes of judges reduce partisan capture while institutional autonomy, both administrative and financial, prevented indirect nudges of pressure.

“These safeguards do not make judges infallible, but they make principled adjudication possible,” Justice Nagarathna said.