The sharp rise in legal showdowns between states and the federal government threatens to undermine India’s constitutional design, Supreme Court Justice B V Nagarathna said on Saturday, warning that such disputes erode the spirit of cooperative federalism and weaken the institutional balance.
While delivering the first Dr. Rajendra Prasad Memorial Lecture on “Constitutionalism Beyond Rights: Why Structure Matters” at the Chanakya National Law University (CNLU) in Patna, Justice Nagaratna asserted that a “mature union” must prioritize dialogue and negotiation over litigation, warning that the increasing tendency of governments to rush to the courts reflects deeper structural concerns.
“Increasing conflict between the states of the union or between the Center and the states does not augur well for the nation,” she said, adding that such conflicts “create an impact on the constitutional form of government and must therefore be avoided.”
In one of the most telling observations of her speech, the judge said: “A mature federal union should not rush to the courts as an adversary; it should instead resort to dialogue, negotiation and mediation. When states start filing suits against each other, or against the Centre, this reflects not a strength, but a weakening of cooperative federalism.”
Likewise, it also emphasized the Union government’s responsibility to maintain federal balance, noting that the Center should view the states as coordinates and not subordinates. “There is no doubt that the Constitution of India is said to be federal in structure and unitary in spirit. However, the vertical separation of powers between governments – Center and State – is not a hierarchy or priority. It is a constitutional arrangement among equals,” she added.
Her remarks come at a time when the Supreme Court is increasingly drawn to politically charged disputes between the central state and intergovernmental disputes. The court is currently hearing a batch of petitions filed by opposition parties challenging the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Review (SIR) of electoral rolls, alleging widespread disenfranchisement, while also hearing a high-stakes petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate against the Mamata Banerjee-led West Bengal government over alleged obstruction of I-PAC raids, a case the court itself described as raising issues that “blow into the rule of law”.
On the other hand, continued litigation over the powers of state governors, especially on matters such as the approval of bills and the appointment of university vice-chancellors, has kept the fault lines between elected state governments and constitutional powers under the microscope, even prompting the president to go to court over the scope of these powers.
Supreme Court judge Justice Ehsanuddin Amanullah, Patna High Court Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and CNLU Vice President Faizan Mustafa were also present at the event.
Justice Nagaratna’s lecture went beyond federalist tensions to situate these concerns within the broader framework of constitutionalism and institutional design. Justice Nagaratna spoke at length about the principle of separation of powers, describing it as a fundamental principle that ensures that no organ of state exceeds its jurisdiction.
She highlighted how constitutional institutions are designed not only to function independently, but to “check, balance, and constrain each other where necessary,” thus maintaining democratic accountability. She suggested that any weakening of this delicate balance risks upsetting the rule of law.
Her speech also touched on the importance of institutional integrity and constitutional ethics, noting that governance structures derive their legitimacy not only from legal authority but from commitment to constitutional values. In this context, she stressed that the judicial, legislative and executive authorities must work within their specific fields while respecting each other’s roles.
