Underlining that the independence of the Election Commission of India is central to the conduct of elections and the political process, Supreme Court judge Justice B V Nagarathna said Saturday “if those who conduct elections are dependent on those who contest them, the neutrality of the process cannot be assured”.Delivering the first Dr Rajendra Prasad Memorial Lecture at Chanakya National Law University in Patna, Justice Nagarathna said institutions such as the Election Commission, the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Finance Commission are designed to operate outside the electoral influence.She described these bodies as “insulated, specialised, and tasked with overseeing domains where the ordinary political process may be insufficient to ensure neutrality”. Their independence, she said, is not incidental but structural.Her remarks came amid the row over the Opposition’s criticism of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the conduct of the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, especially in poll-bound West Bengal. Last month, Opposition MPs submitted notices in both Houses of Parliament for an impeachment motion against the CEC.“Fiscal dependence can produce political dependence,” Justice Nagarathna said of the Finance Commission’s role, adding that the objective in each case is identical: “To prevent the consolidation of power through control over fiscal flows.”The lecture, titled ‘Constitutionalism beyond Rights: Why Structure Matters’, focused on institutional design as the basis of constitutional governance. She said the risk to a constitutional system lies not only in the violation of rights but also in the weakening of institutions that enforce limits on power.“Constitutional identity can be lost without constitutional invalidity,” she said. “Constitutional breakdown can occur within legality through gradual hollowing-out of structure while rights exist formally untouched,” she said.Story continues below this adThe Constitution, Justice Nagarathna said, is based on the division of power across institutions so that authority is not concentrated in one organ. “Without such division, there can be no restraint. Without restraint, no Constitution can protect liberty as well as the preambular rights,” she said.She said the risk to a constitutional system lies in the weakening of its institutional framework, noting that the erosion of structural checks often precedes any visible violation of rights. When institutions cease to act as restraints on one another, formal processes may continue, “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 pointed to indicators of such weakening, including legislatures that do not engage in meaningful deliberation, executives that act beyond legal limits, and courts that move away from constitutional discipline.“When independence yields to convenience, when accountability gives way to expediency, when limits are treated as obstacles rather than safeguards – the structure begins, imperceptibly, to loosen and to crack,” she said.Story continues below this adOn Centre-state relations, she said the Constitution envisages a system of co-equal governments and called for reliance on “dialogue, negotiation, and mediation” rather than adversarial litigation.She referred to Dr Rajendra Prasad’s articulation of checks and balances, noting that each organ of the State must function within its sphere without interfering with others. Citing instances from his tenure, she said Prasad had expressed disagreement with the government over the Hindu Code Bill, leading to its reconsideration before being reintroduced. She also referred to his decision to withhold assent to the PEPSU Appropriation Bill on the ground that it was beyond Parliament’s competence. These instances, she indicated, reflected the exercise of independent constitutional responsibility within the framework of checks and balances.“The Constitution is not self-sustaining,” she said, adding that it depends on “institutional fidelity” and restraint in the exercise of power. “Power, no matter however legitimate in its source, must always remain answerable.”