Justice B.V. Nagarathna of the Supreme Court, while highlighting the significant role of independent constitutional institutions enshrined in the Indian Constitution in democracy, clarified that the exercise of political authority authorized in the Indian administrative system can only be carried out in a manner that preserves the “apolitical” nature of established constitutional institutions, ensuring the protection of citizens’ rights. In this context, she mentioned institutions such as the Election Commission, the Comptroller and Auditor General, and the Finance Commission, stating that it is crucial for these bodies to perform their functions free from any political influence so that India’s democracy can truly be accountable and responsible.
Justice Nagarathna was delivering the inaugural lecture of the Rajendra Prasad Lecture Series at the National University of Law in Patna. She emphasized that it is essential for the Election Commission to remain impartial and neutral under all circumstances, and said that the Commission must carry out its duties with full integrity and dedication, without being concerned about the reactions of political parties.
According to her, these three institutions should discharge their responsibilities free from the political implications of electoral outcomes. Justice Nagarathna explained that the true domain of these institutions begins precisely where doubts about the neutrality of the political sphere arise. Clearly, offices like the Election Commission, Finance Commission, and Comptroller and Auditor General function within the political-administrative system in India, yet the Constitution grants them independence and autonomy so that they can perform their duties fearlessly, irrespective of any government formed by political parties.
Among these, the Election Commission has a direct connection with the citizens because it alone grants every Indian the right to become a voter. By doing so, it fulfills its constitutional responsibility on which the entire democracy of the country rests, since in India, the formation of various governments is determined by citizens exercising their voting rights. It is also important to note that Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, in framing the pillars of India, included the Election Commission alongside the judiciary, executive, and legislature. Among these, the judiciary and the Election Commission were not made part of the government so that governments could be formed according to the people’s will and operate in accordance with the Constitution. The judiciary was primarily tasked with overseeing this process. Hence, Justice Nagarathna’s assertion that the neutrality of independent constitutional institutions is fundamentally enshrined in the Constitution is an enduring truth.
Specifically regarding the Election Commission, there is currently significant unrest among opposition parties concerning the functioning of the Chief Election Commissioner, Mr. Sushil Chandra, which has led them to propose his removal in both Houses of Parliament. The opposition has expressed serious concern about the Election Commission’s decision to revise the voter lists nationwide, leading the matter to reach the Supreme Court. Nevertheless, Justice Nagarathna’s views pertain to the foundational structure of Indian democracy established in the Constitution to ensure people-centric administration.
Regarding the Finance Commission, her view that financial dependence can lead to political dependence is entirely logical. The Finance Commission can discharge its duties effectively only by remaining independent of the political structure of the states. In India’s parliamentary system, state-level elections often have political preferences distinct from national elections, resulting in different political parties governing various states. Even today, ten states are governed by non-BJP parties while the BJP has formed the central government in the last three elections. Therefore, in this diversified political-administrative system, the Finance Commission, responsible for ensuring adequate financial resources for the development of states, can fulfill its responsibilities impartially and neutrally only if it remains free from political pressures.
Similarly, the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General can perform its duties with full integrity and dedication only if it operates beyond the reach of political influence. Justice Nagarathna thus asserted that ignoring the neutrality of independent constitutional institutions undermines the constitutional validity itself. If this is done, even though the constitutional framework may remain formally intact, the system can collapse, while citizens’ rights formally continue to exist—this occurs due to the hollowing out of these institutions.
According to her, the institutional framework established in our Constitution is based on a proper distribution of powers so that no single entity monopolizes all authority. Without decentralization of power, there can be no checks on authority, and without checks, no constitution can effectively safeguard civil liberties and citizens’ rights. Therefore, a strong institutional framework of constitutional bodies is essential for the functioning of democracy.
