Supreme Court Justice B V Nagarathna warns that the neutrality of elections is at risk if the Election Commission lacks structural independence, highlighting the need for impartial oversight to safeguard Indian democracy.
Key Points
- Justice Nagarathna stresses that the neutrality of elections is compromised if those conducting them are dependent on the contestants.
- The Supreme Court recognises the Election Commission as a vital constitutional authority responsible for ensuring the integrity of elections.
- Elections are a mechanism for constituting political authority, and control over this process equates to control over political competition.
- Constitutional collapse occurs when institutions fail to check each other, leading to unrestrained power despite the appearance of functioning systems.
- Justice Nagarathna urges the Centre to treat states as coordinates, not subordinates, emphasising the separation of powers as a constitutional arrangement of equals.
Neutrality of elections cannot be assured if those who conduct polls are dependent on the contestants, Justice B V Nagarathna of the Supreme Court has said, in a veiled admonishment of the Election Commission.
The apex court judge raised a critical concern regarding the structural independence of those tasked with overseeing the ballot while delivering the Rajendra Prasad Memorial Lecture at the Chanakya Law University in Patna on Saturday.
Citing a 1995 verdict where the Supreme Court recognised the Election Commission as a constitutional authority of high significance, entrusted with ensuring the integrity of elections, she said, "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."
Justice Nagarathna said 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.
The Supreme Court judge said that power is not exercised only through formal institutions but also through the processes that sustain them, including elections, public finance and regulation.
"A constitutional structure that seeks to restrain power must therefore go beyond its classical forms and address these fourth-branch institutions.
"A set of institutions, while not always fitting within the classical tripartite scheme, is nonetheless central to the maintenance of constitutional order," she said.
The Risk of Constitutional Collapse
Justice Nagarathna said 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. At that moment, elections may continue, courts may function, laws may be enacted by Parliament, and yet, power is effectively not restrained because the structural discipline no longer exists," she said.
Centre-State Relations
The apex court judge also urged the Centre to view states as 'coordinates and not subordinates' and asserted that the separation of powers was a 'constitutional arrangement of co-equals'.
Justice Nagarathna also called for keeping aside 'inter-party differences' in the matter of 'Centre-state relations', underscoring that governance must not depend on 'which party may be ruling the Centre and which other party may be ruling at the state level'.
