She was answering a query of a law student and turned towards the advocate general to a question on women’s participation in litigation in the Dr Rajendra Prasad Memorial Lecture at Chanakya National Law University (CNLU), Patna, where she also spoke on constitutional structure and governance.
The lecture, themed “Constitutionalism beyond Rights: Why Structure Matters,” explored how the Constitution’s endurance depends on the distribution and limitation of power. Supreme Court judge, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanalluah and vice-chancellor of the university Faizan Mustafa were also present, among others.
Dr Rajendra Prasad Memorial Lecture, CNLU Patna — "Constitutionalism beyond Rights: Why Structure Matters"
"The real constitution of any polity lies not only in the rights it declares, but in how it organises power." — Justice B V Nagarathna, Supreme Court of India
The Core Argument
Rights Alone
Parchment Guarantees
Fundamental rights without institutional safeguards risk becoming mere textual promises — declared on paper but unenforceable in practice.
Rights + Structure
Real Constitutional Strength
Liberty is secured when power is distributed, limited, and disciplined across institutions — not merely when rights are written into law.
India's structural safeguard: The Basic Structure Doctrine (Kesavananda Bharati, 1973) — Parliament can amend the Constitution but cannot dismantle the very framework that limits its own power.
Dual responsibilities continue to hinder women lawyers
Justice Nagarathna explained that the underrepresentation of women in litigation is closely tied to the “dual role” they are required to perform- balancing demanding legal careers with household responsibilities.
“The reason is… because of the dual role that a woman plays… she also has her household to look after,” she said, noting that this often limits the time and continuity required to build a successful litigation practice.
Justice Nagarathna illustrated the disparity through a striking observation, “When it comes to a successful man, there is always a woman behind him. But when it comes to a successful woman, there is a family behind her,” emphasising the need for shared domestic support systems.
Story continues below this ad
Career breaks impact visibility, growth
The judge pointed out that many women lawyers are forced to step away from active practice due to pregnancy, childcare, and family responsibilities, often at crucial stages of their careers.
“Many a time she has to drop out from the profession midway… and cannot return to the profession with a sufficient number of cases,” said Justice Nagarathna.
Such disruptions, she noted, directly affect courtroom visibility, which is a critical factor in professional recognition and advancement within the legal system.
Visibility in courts key for elevation
Justice B V Nagarathna stressed that regular courtroom appearances and sustained litigation practice are essential for elevation to the bench.
Story continues below this ad
“The lady lawyer in the profession becomes more critical for the purpose of elevation,” she said, explaining that judges tend to consider advocates whom they frequently see arguing cases effectively.
She added that increasing women’s presence as law officers and panel advocates would significantly improve their visibility, thereby enhancing their prospects for judicial appointments.
Reservation as structural solution
Framing her 30 per cent recommendation as a structural intervention, Justice Nagarathna said that institutional support is necessary to counter systemic barriers faced by women.
“If they are given an opportunity, they will continue to remain in the profession… their visibility in the profession would be greater,” Justice Nagarathna added.
Story continues below this ad
She suggested that such measures would create a pipeline of experienced women advocates who can be considered for elevation to high courts and eventually the Supreme Court.
Optimism about future representation
Despite the challenges, Justice Nagarathna expressed optimism about the future of women in the judiciary, pointing to changing trends in recruitment.
She noted that more than 50 per cent of recent entrants into judicial services are women, which could gradually improve gender representation at higher levels of the judiciary.
“In due course of time, they’ll all come to the high court and from the high court to the Supreme Court also… I’m very, very optimistic,” said Justice Nagarathna.
Story continues below this ad
Link to broader constitutional vision
Her remarks on gender representation also aligned with the broader theme of her lecture, which emphasised the importance of institutional structures in shaping equitable outcomes.
By advocating targeted representation, Justice Nagarathna highlighted that ensuring equality in the legal profession requires not just formal rights, but deliberate structural measures that enable women to sustain and advance their careers.
Remembering Dr Rajendra Prasad’s constitutional legacy
Justice B V Nagarathna began by recalling the life and contributions of , describing him as a towering constitutional figure whose legacy extended beyond his role as India’s first President. She traced his journey from a distinguished academic and lawyer to President of the Constituent Assembly (1946–1950), where he presided over the framing of the Constitution.
She highlighted his unwavering commitment to constitutional morality, citing instances where he exercised independent judgment as President, including withholding assent to legislation in 1954 and expressing disagreement with executive policies. These actions, she noted, reflected a deep understanding of constitutional restraint and the independence of institutions.
Story continues below this ad
Quoting his 1960 address at the Bar Association of India, she said that Dr Prasad had emphasised the importance of each organ functioning within its own sphere, guided by restraint and mutual respect. This vision, she said, remains central to India’s constitutional design.
Rights without structure ‘parchment guarantees’
Turning to the central thesis of her lecture, Justice Nagarathna argued that fundamental rights, though essential, cannot by themselves ensure liberty unless supported by a robust institutional framework.
Drawing from the writings of , she said that rights without structural safeguards risk becoming “parchment guarantees”- mere textual promises lacking practical enforcement. She emphasised that the Constitution’s real strength lies in how it distributes, limits, and disciplines power across institutions.
She pointed out that history offers numerous examples of constitutions that proclaimed lofty ideals but failed to deliver them due to weak structural safeguards. “The real constitution of any polity lies not only in the rights it declares, but in how it organises power,” she said.
Story continues below this ad
Basic structure doctrine: Structural safeguard
Justice Nagarathna then traced the evolution of constitutional jurisprudence on Parliament’s amending power. She referred to early decisions such as and , which upheld broad parliamentary powers to amend the Constitution.
However, she noted that doubts about unlimited amending power eventually led to the landmark ruling in . In that case, the Supreme Court held that while Parliament can amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its “basic structure.”
“This doctrine is not about protecting individual rights alone; it is about preserving the structural integrity of the Constitution,” she said, adding that it ensures no authority can dismantle the very framework that limits its own power.
