Justice BV Nagarathna Stresses Importance Of Free Speech And Dissent In Democracy
Justice BV Nagarathna emphasised that freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) was vital for a functioning democracy.
Freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution remains central to a functioning democracy, Supreme Court judge Justice BV Nagarathna said on Thursday, underlining that divergent and dissenting viewpoints must not only be permitted but meaningfully engaged with.
Speaking at the launch of Senior Advocate Indira Jaising’s book The Constitution Is My Home: Conversations on a Life in Law in New Delhi, Justice Nagarathna said democratic societies cannot thrive without space for disagreement and alternative perspectives.
“When I say divergent thoughts and perspectives must always be considered and allowed to be expressed, expression under Article 19(1)(a) is very, very important these days. That is how democracy functions,” she observed.
Justice Nagarathna also acknowledged Indira Jaising’s long-standing legal career, noting that she has consistently advanced alternative viewpoints, particularly on women’s rights and constitutional protections for marginalised communities.
The judge described Jaising’s book as more than a memoir, calling it a reflection on constitutional values and lived engagement with justice. She said the Constitution must not be treated as a distant legal document but as a living framework that shapes everyday civic and institutional life.
Justice Nagarathna highlighted the importance of “sisterhood” in the legal profession, describing it as a necessary professional commitment to ensure that access to law does not end with individual achievement. She said that solidarity among women lawyers is not merely emotional support but a structural necessity in a profession where entry networks have historically been dominated by men.
She further observed that while male professionals often benefit from long-standing professional networks and informal recommendations, women have historically entered the profession without such advantages. “Sisterhood in the profession is very important… as a conscious intellectual and professional commitment to ensuring that access does not end with individual achievement,” she said.
Justice Nagarathna also reflected on the generational journey of women in law, noting that every generation has had to prove something that the previous one could not take for granted. “With each successive generation, the burden becomes a little less,” she said, adding that women in law carry forward not just ambition but also the collective courage of those who came before them.
CJI Surya Kant, who could not attend the event due to an official engagement related to a BRICS judges’ conference, sent a video message congratulating the author and reflecting on the Constitution as a “shared home” that survives through adaptation and care across generations.
In a related news, Justice Nagarathna in March had made a strong case for the creation of a judicial reforms commission to address the mounting backlog of cases, warning that systemic incentives across stakeholders are contributing to delays in justice delivery.
Speaking at the first national conference organised by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) on the theme “Reimagining judicial governance: strengthening institutions for democratic justice,” Justice Nagarathna had said that meaningful reform requires coordinated institutional intervention rather than isolated efforts. Participating in a panel discussion titled “From Pendency to Prompt Justice: Rethinking Justice Delivery in Indian Courts,” she proposed that the reforms commission should have broad-based representation. This, she had said, must include members from the Supreme Court, High Courts and district judiciary, as well as representatives from the Bar, including the Attorney General and Solicitor General, along with government stakeholders to facilitate an inter-institutional dialogue.
Highlighting the root causes of judicial delay, Justice Nagarathna pointed to what she described as a “systemic equilibrium” where each stakeholder acts in a manner that is individually rational but collectively harmful to the justice system. “A litigant gains from the status quo to prolong proceedings. A lawyer or advocate often benefits from adjournments and extended timelines. A government department reduces bureaucratic risk by preferring appeals over accepting adverse decisions,” she had observed.