CJI BR Gavai : A Tenure With Mixed Outcomes

Justice Bhushan Ramakrishna Gavai's elevation as Chief Justice of India was historic, marking only the second time a Dalit occupied the nation's highest judicial office. He was also the first Buddhist to serve as CJI. Throughout his tenure, CJI Gavai spoke openly of his reverence for Dr Ambedkar and repeatedly acknowledged that it was Ambedkar's constitutional vision that enabled a person from a marginalised background like him to rise to such a position.

Justice Gavai's tenure as the 52nd Chief Justice of India was keenly anticipated, as he had shown promises of brilliance and boldness through many of his earlier judgments. His most significant judgment (before becoming the CJI) could be In Re: Directions in the matter of Demolition of Structures, delivered at a moment when the phenomenon of “bulldozer justice” had reached disturbing proportions. In a categorical denouncement of such actions as manifestations of lawlessness, the bench led by Justice Gavai (as he then was) held that the homes of accused persons cannot be demolished as a proxy for punitive action, and laid down a set of clear safeguards to curb arbitrary demolitions.

In Prabir Purkayastha, his bench declared the arrest of the NewsClick editor under the UAPA illegal and ordered his immediate release. Crucially, the judgment affirmed that written grounds of arrest must be furnished even in UAPA cases. When the arrests of political leaders were becoming a worrying trend, Justice Gavai's bench sent a strong reminder that “bail is the rule” while granting relief to Manish Sisodia and K Kavitha in the Delhi liquor policy case. Justice Gavai's bench also stayed the conviction of Rahul Gandhi in the Modi-defamation case, a decision that averted the imminent threat of the disqualification of the present Opposition Leader from electoral politics. In another significant ruling, his bench invalidated the extensions granted to former ED Director S.K. Mishra, reinforcing the principle that the legislature cannot simply override judgments. He also headed the bench which held a special sitting on a Saturday night to grant interim bail to activist Teesta Setalvad.

Before becoming the CJI, Justice Gavai was part of Constitution Bench judgments in Electoral Bonds and Article 370 cases. Justice Gavai headed the Constitution Bench which approved demonetisation, which, seven years down the line, had become an academic issue. In the SC/ST sub-classification matter, Justice Gavai wrote a separate opinion making a radical suggestion to enforce creamy layer concept in Scheduled Caste reservations.

Positives as the CJI

Chief Justice BR Gavai's six-month tenure had several notable positives, particularly in areas concerning environmental protection, judicial service reforms and tribunal reforms. In Madras Bar Association, the bench led by him struck down the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, treating the Government's re-enactment of previously invalidated provisions as a direct affront to judicial independence. In doing so, the Court carried forward both the effect and spirit of its earlier rulings, marking one of the tenure's clear high points.

Despite concerns arising in some environmental matters, CJI Gavai adopted a proactive approach in several other areas. His tenure saw important directions for tiger conservatories/tiger safaris, restoring Corbett Park, notifying the Saranda sanctuary, and safeguarding sensitive regions such as the Zupdi lands in Maharashtra, Delhi's ridge and the Aravali hills.

In the realm of insolvency law, the decision to recall the judgment rejecting JSW Steel's resolution plan for Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd also stood out for correcting a pedantic interpretation of the IBC that had ignored the Code's objectives.

Reforms of judicial service

On the judicial service side, CJI Gavai took steps widely appreciated within the profession. The re-introduction of three-year practice requirement to enter judicial service, combined with the rulings in Madras Bar Association, the All India Judges Association case on higher judicial service seniority norms, and directions on court managers, reflected a concerted effort to strengthen the institutional framework. Though the ruling in Rejanish KV v K Deepa, holding that serving judicial officers can compete in direct recruitment for District Judge posts, remains contentious, it nevertheless showed an active engagement with long-standing structural issues.

He also took timely action to protect the independence of the legal profession. Taking suo motu cognizance of investigating agencies summoning advocates over legal opinions, his bench ensured that the Court issued clear directions against such arbitrary practices.

The CJI has also expressed concerns about the agencies like CBI and ED being used for “political battles”, and has questioned their actions in cases such as MUDA, TASMAC, Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha etc, while staying the investigation.

On the administrative side, CJI Gavai took the historic step of introducing reservations for SC/STs in the Supreme Court staff recruitment.

CJI Gavai also held the Court in a patient and pleasant manner, often lightening the tension in heated arguments with his jovial comments, and was always encouraging towards the younger members. His decision to stop the mentionings by Senior Advocates was a boost to the junior bar.

Judicial retractions

Soon after becoming the Chief Justice of India, Justice BR Gavai announced that the glass panels erected around the Supreme Court's corridors - done during the term of CJI Chandrachud - will be removed. Very soon, the glass panels and the air conditioning system in the Court corridors were dismantled and removed. The new logo of the Supreme Court was also withdrawn. These seemingly trivial administrative acts, in one way symbolise, a striking feature or CJI Gavai's legacy- it was a tenure which witnessed the dismantling of several judicial precedents.

The most disquieting was the opinion in the Presidential Reference, which diluted the time limits that the Supreme Court itself had set for the President and Governors to act on Bills. A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court had set the timelines in the Tamil Nadu case in view of the recurring malady of Governors sitting over Bills for years to obstruct the State's legislative process. The judgment in the TN case was a timely panacea to this grave abuse of the Constitutional office - coincidentally happening only in opposition ruled States - which was negating both the principles of federalism as well as representative democracy. However, the 5-judge bench under CJI Gavai, indirectly overruled the TN Governor judgment, acting as if the Presidential Reference was an intra-court appeal. By removing the fixed timelines, the Court reintroduced an element of uncertainty. The opinion in the Reference left only a narrow opening, permitting aggrieved States to approach the Court for time-bound directions in cases of prolonged, unexplained inaction, an uncertain substitute for what had been a clear judicial mandate. Apart from retracting the timelines, the opinion produced a few other problematic consequences: it held that the Governor's decision to withhold assent or to refer a Bill to the President is beyond judicial review, and further, that the Governor may refer a Bill to the President even after it has been re-passed by the Assembly.

Environmental regulation was another sphere where judicial backtracking happened. In a significant departure, CJI Gavai presided over the dilution of the long-standing ban on firecrackers in Delhi NCR to permit 'green crackers' for Diwali, following fervent pleas by the Governments and manufacturers. The relaxation of the ban was not preceded by any scientific study or empirical data regarding the impact of crackers or the efficacy of green crackers. Even when the air quality in the national capital region plummeted to alarming levels, the Court did not show a sense of alacrity. There was also no follow up on whether the conditions for use of green crackers were enforced.

Then came the recall of the 2024 Vanashakti judgment, which had barred the grant of post-facto environmental clearances for projects that had commenced without statutory approvals. 'Vanashakti' judgment was an embodiment of the principle reiterated in many precedents that 'retrospective grant of EC was an anathema to environmental protection. 'Vanashakti' had also protected the existing projects which got post-facto EC and only restrained the Government from granting such ECs in future. Within months, the bench led by CJI recalled Vanashakti on reasons that appear largely pedantic and not convincing. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan's dissent rightly termed the recall a “step in retrogression”.

The fact that the retraction of the firecracker ban and Vanashakti judgment happened within months after the retirement of the lead judge in those matters (Justice Oka) also leaves a bad optics that the judgments of the Supreme Court can be easily revisited on a change of the judge.

Handling of the Waqf Amendment Challenge

In the Waqf Amendment Act 2025 matter, a politically sensitive issue which Justice Gavai heard soon after assuming the office of the CJI, the bench stayed some of the contentious provisions, such as the condition showing practice of Islam for five years and the power given to the Government to de-recognize a Waqf land during the pendency of dispute regarding public encroachment. Largely agreeing with the Government's logic, the bench did not interfere with the provisions requiring registration or the abolition of 'waqf-by-user', despite the serious concerns raised by the predecessor bench led by CJI Sanjiv Khanna. It was also curious why Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice KV Viswanathan, who were part of the earlier bench which heard the matter, was not included in the present bench.

Clouds over Collegium decisions

One major dark spot in CJI Gavai's tenure is the manner in which Collegium decisions were handled. The Collegium under his leadership abandoned even the minimal transparency that previously existed, dispensing with the practice of giving reasons for its recommendations. Signs of executive influence appear writ large in the opaque functioning of the body. The dissent of Justice B.V. Nagarathna on the elevation of Justice Vipul Pancholi, said to be based on serious concerns, was never published, despite the Collegium's duty to maintain openness and public accountability. These anxieties only deepened when the Collegium recommended the appointment of CJI Gavai's nephew to the Bombay High Court. The sequence has strengthened the impression of a tacit “give and take” between the judiciary and the Executive.

Further, the flurry of High Court judges' transfers during this period was carried out without any disclosure of reasons. The case of Justice Atul Sreedharan is particularly troubling. The Collegium itself admitted that his transfer proposal was modified at the instance of the Government, directing him to the Allahabad High Court as a relatively junior judge. Known for his independence and forthrightness, Justice Sreedharan is unlikely to be a favourite of the establishment. By accommodating the Government's preferences, the Collegium appeared to fail in protecting an independent judge. The principles of judicial independence, which were articulated in the Madras Bar Association case, were perhaps given a go-by on the administrative side.

There were also two curious episodes in which CJI Gavai appeared to intervene in matters pending before another bench. One was the case where a bench led by Justice JB Pardiwala passed an unusual order that a High Court judge should not be given a criminal roster. After the order created a controversy, CJI wrote to Justice Pardiwala to recall the direction, and abiding by the CJI's request, the order was recalled. The second was the case where the bench led by Justice Pardiwala passed an order for the removal of stray dogs in NCR. After the order led to outrage by dog lovers, CJI Gavai shifted the case from Justice Pardiwala's bench to a larger bench, which later modified the directions.

Conclusion

Whether the CJI's invocation of Dr.Ambedkar's ideals transformed into institutional action is a matter for debate. In this context, the lukewarm response to the contempt petitions over demolitions is illustrative. Though Justice Gavai expressed that the judgment in the 'bulldozer'matter was his most satisfying moment, there was no prompt or firm contempt action even as reports of unlawful demolitions continued. A single decisive contempt ruling could have signalled that executive defiance would not be tolerated.

CJI Gavai's six-month tenure will likely be remembered as a mixed chapter, involving some good measures, and certain missteps. A sense of ambivalence and a reluctance to be firm where it mattered were discernible at moments. The pattern seen with some of his predecessors - that of letting the executive have a free pass on issues carrying high stakes for it, and interfering in other lesser prominent matters to project a perception of balance- resurfaced here as well.

The author is the Managing Editor of LiveLaw. He can be reached at manu@livelaw.in