“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,” she said.CALLING SEPARATION of powers the “architecture” of constitutional governance, Supreme Court judge Justice B V Nagarathna on Tuesday said that where the lines that separate the operations of the executive, judiciary, and legislature “are respected, constitutionalism survives. Where they blur, arbitrariness trumps.”Delivering the 2nd Justice T S Krishnamoorthy Iyer Memorial Lecture at the Kerala High Court, Justice Nagarathna focused on what she described as a dialogue between transformative constitutionalism and the basic structure doctrine — two ideas often invoked separately but, she argued, deeply connected.One, she said, is about movement, how the Constitution helps society confront historical injustice and evolve. The other is about restraint, how far the Constitution itself can be altered without losing its identity. “Very simply put, the basic structure tells us what must not be lost; transformative constitutionalism explains how those commitments are meant to endure,” she said.“Democracy is dedicated to liberty and equality,” she said, adding that without judicial protection of rights, “the preconditions of liberty and equality would fall”.Acknowledging that majorities have the authority to govern and “have a right to work their mistaken wills anyway”, Justice Nagarathna said that “that right is not untrammelled: it is the Judiciary, therefore, which determines the limits of that right”.She noted that courts derive legitimacy precisely because they do not operate on popular sentiment. “The legitimacy of the courts comes precisely from the fact that courts act without reference to popular sentiment and by doing so, they address injustices which majoritarian institutions are fundamentally incapable of addressing.”Justice Nagarathna said enforcing constitutional limits often “requires courts to invalidate legislation, restrain executive action, or set aside constitutional amendments enacted by political majorities. These are not easy tasks. They often carry political consequences.”Story continues below this adShe said judges may be aware that unpopular decisions could “cost them elevation, extension, or bring them in the bad books of the powers that be”. However, she said, “that should not come in the way of their decisions”.“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,” she said.She said that judicial independence is not secured by institutional safeguards alone, although security of tenure and autonomy help protect judges from pressure. It ultimately depends on how judges act. “The true content of judicial independence is realised not in institutional design alone, but in the manner in which judges discharge their office,” she said.She said judges must be free from “political pressure, institutional intimidation, or popular demand”, and also should be free to express their own views, since “separate and dissenting opinions are manifestations of intellectual autonomy”. © The Indian Express Pvt LtdTags:supreme court