In a significant articulation of India’s constitutional federalism, Justice B.V. Nagarathna has underscored that the Union government must not treat States as subordinates, while firmly asserting that citizens cannot be discriminated against merely on the basis of their State of residence. The remarks reflect a deeper judicial concern over preserving the federal balance and equality framework embedded in the Constitution.
Justice Nagarathna emphasized that Centre–State relations must remain rooted in constitutional principles rather than political convenience. She observed that the nature of governance cannot fluctuate depending on whether the same political party is in power at both levels, reinforcing that federalism in India is not a matter of administrative hierarchy but constitutional design.
This observation gains importance in the contemporary context, where cooperative federalism is often tested by political divergences between the Union and State governments. At the heart of the remarks lies a reaffirmation of the principle that citizenship rights are pan-Indian and indivisible. Justice Nagarathna cautioned against any form of discrimination that disadvantages individuals solely because they belong to a particular State.
Such a stance aligns squarely with Article 14 (Equality before law), Article 15 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 16 (Equality of opportunity in public employment). The implicit warning is clear any State-specific exclusion or differential treatment must withstand strict constitutional scrutiny.
India’s Constitution establishes a quasi-federal structure, where powers are distributed between the Centre and the States, but neither is subordinate to the other within their respective spheres. Justice Nagarathna’s remarks reaffirm this balance, cautioning against central overreach that may erode the autonomy of States.
Her articulation echoes longstanding constitutional jurisprudence which treats federalism as part of the basic structure doctrine, thereby placing it beyond legislative dilution.
The remarks also come amid a broader judicial discourse on institutional independence and constitutional governance. Justice Nagarathna has consistently highlighted the importance of safeguarding institutions from political influence and ensuring that governance remains anchored in the rule of law.
By linking federalism with equality, the statement expands the conversation suggesting that federal imbalance is not merely a structural issue but one that directly impacts individual rights.
The intervention carries far-reaching implications like it reinforces that administrative actions must not create inter-state hierarchies among citizens. It cautions against policies that may indirectly lead to regional discrimination. It strengthens the argument that federalism is intrinsically tied to individual dignity and equal citizenship
In essence, the remarks bridge two foundational pillars of the Constitution federalism and fundamental rights. Justice B.V. Nagarathna’s observations serve as a timely reminder that India’s constitutional vision rests on a delicate equilibrium a Union strong enough to govern effectively, yet restrained enough to respect the autonomy of States and the equality of its citizens.
In an era of increasing centralisation debates, the judiciary’s reiteration of these principles signals that constitutional federalism is not merely structural it is a living guarantee against discrimination and imbalance in governance
