A sharp rise in legal confrontations between states and the Union government risks undermining India’s constitutional design, Supreme Court judge Justice BV Nagarathna said on Saturday, cautioning that such disputes erode the spirit of cooperative federalism and weaken institutional balance.
Delivering the First Dr Rajendra Prasad Memorial Lecture on ‘Constitutionalism beyond rights: Why structure matters’ at Chanakya National Law University (CNLU) in Patna, Justice Nagarathna stressed that a “mature federation” must prioritise dialogue and negotiation over litigation, warning that the growing tendency of governments to rush to courts reflects deeper structural concerns.
“Increase in conflict between the States of the Union or between the Centre and the States does not augur well for the nation,” she said, adding that such disputes “create a dent in constitutional form of governance and thus must be avoided.”
In one of the most pointed observations of her address, the judge remarked: “A mature federation ought not rush to courts as adversaries; instead it should turn to dialogue, negotiation, and mediation. When States begin filing suits against one another, or against the Centre, it reflects not strength, but a weakening of cooperative federalism.”
Similarly, she also underlined the responsibility of the Union government in maintaining federal equilibrium, stating that the Centre must view states as coordinates and not subordinates. “No doubt, the Constitution of India is said to be federal in structure and unitary in spirit. Yet, the vertical separation of powers between governments – centre and State – is not a hierarchy or of priority. It is a constitutional arrangement of co-equals,” she added.
Her remarks come at a time when the Supreme Court is increasingly being drawn into politically charged Centre-State and inter-governmental disputes. The court is currently seized of a clutch of petitions by Opposition parties challenging the Election Commission’s special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, alleging large-scale disenfranchisement, while also hearing a high-stakes petition by the Enforcement Directorate against the Mamata Banerjee-led West Bengal government over the alleged obstruction of I-PAC raids, a case the court itself described as raising issues that “strike at the rule of law.”
At the same time, continuing litigation over the powers of Governors, particularly in matters such as assent to Bills and appointments of vice-chancellors, has kept the faultlines between elected state governments and constitutional authorities under the scanner, even prompting a presidential reference to the court on the scope of such powers.
Supreme Court judge Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Patna High Court chief justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and vice-chancellor of CNLU Faizan Mustafa also attended the event.
Justice Nagarathna’s lecture went beyond federal tensions to situate these concerns within the broader framework of constitutionalism and institutional design. Justice Nagarathna spoke at length about the doctrine of separation of powers, describing it as a foundational principle that ensures that no single organ of the state overreaches its mandate.
She highlighted how constitutional institutions are designed not merely to function independently, but to “check, balance, and, where necessary, restrain each other,” thereby preserving democratic accountability. Any weakening of this delicate equilibrium, she suggested, risks upsetting the rule of law.
Her address also touched upon the importance of institutional integrity and constitutional morality, noting that governance structures derive legitimacy not just from legal authority but from adherence to constitutional values. In this context, she stressed that the judiciary, legislature, and executive must operate within their defined spheres while respecting the roles of one another.
