Major Judgements Of Justice BR Gavai, The Newly Sworn-In CJI

Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai, Judge of the Supreme Court of India, took oath today as the 52nd Chief Justice of India after the current Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, retired on May 13. Justice Gavai has become the second CJI belonging to the Scheduled Caste community after Justice KG Balakrishnan retired as the CJI in 2010.During his time as a judge, Justice Gavai has delivered some significant judgments ranging from environmental rights to arbitration. The most recent and prominent judgment is laying down guidelines against "bulldozer justice", which became a menace in society at the hands of State authorities. Laying down a very strong message, the Court held that the executive cannot demolish the houses/properties of persons only on the ground that they are accused or convicted of a crime. Some of his other prominent judgments include granting bail to former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister and Aam Aadmi Party leader Manish Sisodia and Bharat Rashtra Samithi leader K Kavitha in connection with the Delhi liquor policy case on the grounds of undue delay in trial, violating the right to speedy justice. Justice Gavai also led the bench which held as illegal the arrest of NewsClick founder and Editor-in-Chief Prabir Purkayastha, as grounds of arrest were not supplied to him.Justice Gavai was also a part of the constitution bench which held that sub-classification within the Scheduled Caste is permissible. In his separate concurring opinion, Justice Gavai advocated for the application of the creamy layer to the Scheduled Castes. Soon after he is appointed the CJI, he will have to head a bench deciding the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act and the Waqf Act, 1995. This is set to be heard on May 15.We look at some of the important judgments in which Justice Gavai has been a part as a judge: Bulldozer justice affront to rule of lawIn Re: Directions in the matter of Demolition of Structures v. and Ors. [November 13, 2024]: Sending a strong message against the trend of "bulldozer justice", the Supreme Court held that the executive cannot demolish the houses/properties of persons only on the ground that they are accused or convicted of a crime. Permitting such action by the executive is contrary to the rule of law and also a violation of the principle of separation of powers, as it is for the judiciary to pronounce on the guilt of a person. The Court also observed that such actions amount to imposing "collective punishment" on the family of the accused/convict. Further, when properties are selectively demolished, there is a presumption that it was a malafide action.The Court issued a set of steps to be followed before demolition including prior show cause notice and personal hearing and judicial scrutiny before the order is finalised. Bench: Justice BR Gavai [authored] and Justice KV ViswanathanSub-classification within Scheduled Caste permissible; Scheduled Castes should have creamy layer State Of Punjab And Ors. v Davinder Singh And Ors [August 1, 2024]: The Supreme Court (by 6-1) held that sub-classification of Scheduled Castes is permissible to grant separate quotas for more backwards within the SC categories. The States can identify more backwards among the SC categories and can sub-classify them for separate quota within the quota. The Court clarified that while allowing sub-classification, the State cannot earmark 100% reservation for a sub-class. Also, the State has to justify the sub-classification on the basis of empirical data regarding the inadequacy of representation of the sub-class.In a concurring opinion written by Justice Gavai advocated for making the principle of creamy layer applicable to Scheduled Castes, citing Ambedkar's observation in his book “What Gandhi and Congress have done to Untouchables”. He stressed the disparities between children of high-ranking officers belonging to SC communities and those of disadvantaged SC members, arguing that treating them equally under reservations would defeat the purpose of achieving real equality. He urged that the State must evolve a policy for identifying the creamy layer even from the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes so as to exclude them from the benefit of affirmative action. In my view, only this and this alone can achieve the real equality as enshrined under the Constitution.Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud [concurring opinion for Misra and himself], Justices BR Gavai [concurring opinion], Vikram Nath [concurring opinion], Bela M Trivedi [dissented], Pankaj Mithal [concurring opinion], Manoj Misra and Satish Chandra Sharma [concurring opinion]Justice Gavai was also a part of the bench in Jarnail Singh vs Lachhmi Narain Gupta [January 28, 2022] which declared that its 2006 judgment in M. Nagaraj & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., will have only a prospective effect. In the 2006 judgment, which upheld the constitutional amendments which inserted Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B), the Court had held that it is not mandatory for the...

Major Judgements Of Justice BR Gavai, The Newly Sworn-In CJI

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

Tags