© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
As Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai steps down, his tenure of just over six months will be remembered for both marking a milestone in representation – Justice Gavai was the first Buddhist and only the second Dalit to hold the highest judicial office – and for decisions sparking legal debates on the functioning of the Court, the administrative powers of the CJI and the opaque mechanics of the Collegium system.
Born into a family with deep political and social roots – his father RS Gavai is a former Governor and parliamentarian – Justice Gavai began his legal career in Nagpur. He practised in the chambers of Barrister Raja Bhonsale, who would later become a judge of the Bombay High Court, as well as independently in the Nagpur Bench of the court from 1987.
He went on to serve as Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor, before being elevated in 2003 as an Additional Judge of the Bombay High Court.
His journey from there to the apex court was marked by a reputation for quick disposal of cases and a pragmatic approach to litigation.
Judicial legacy
In the Supreme Court, Justice Gavai was part of the Benches that upheld the abrogation of Article 370 and struck down the electoral bonds scheme. He wrote the majority opinion upholding the Central government’s 2016 demonetization measure, saying it had consulted with the RBI and ruling that the decision satisfied the test of proportionality.
His judicial approach often reflected a balance between strict procedural adherence and the protection of civil liberties. In 2024, a Bench led by Justice Gavai granted bail to senior Aam Aadmi Party leader Manish Sisodia after 17 months of imprisonment, observing that the long delay deprived the accused of the right to a speedy trial. Similarly, he was part of the Bench that stayed the conviction of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi in a criminal defamation case, restoring his parliamentary membership.
Justice Gavai’s Bench was also behind the bail to activist Teesta Setalvad. Granting the same at night, past 9.15 pm, the Bench sharply criticised the Gujarat High Court’s reasoning to order her arrest as “perverse”. The High Court had said bail to Setalvad would “deepen and widen communal polarisation”.
In a 2024 judgment on sub-classification within Scheduled Castes, Justice Gavai wrote a concurring opinion arguing that the creamy layer exclusion – previously applicable only to OBCs – should also apply to SCs to ensure benefits reach the most marginalised.
He also delivered a stinging verdict on “bulldozer justice”. Ruling that the Executive cannot act like the judge and demolish properties of accused persons, Justice Gavai laid down strict guidelines, including a mandatory 15-day notice period.
In his farewell speech, Justice Gavai identified “bulldozer justice” judgment as one of his most important, closely ranking the one supporting sub-classification of SCs.
In a significant verdict delivered just days before Justice Gavai’s retirement, a Bench led by him struck down the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021. The judgment was a sharp rebuke to the Executive, holding that Parliament cannot simply re-enact provisions that the Supreme Court has struck down without curing the underlying constitutional defects.
Similarly, in the politically sensitive challenge to the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, a Bench led by CJI Gavai refused to stay the entire law but implemented crucial guardrails by staying the most contentious provisions.
‘Master of the roster’ and procedural changes
CJI Gavai’s exercise of administrative powers as the ‘Master of the roster’ – the sole authority to allocate cases to Benches – drew scrutiny. Particularly, the “growing trend” of “intra-court appeals”, in which final orders passed by one Bench were revisited or modified by another Bench through procedural routes circumventing established convention.
For example, the Delhi stray dogs case. In August, a two-judge Supreme Court Bench ordered the removal of stray dogs from streets. Following a public outcry, a three-judge Bench was constituted, which modified the order to align with Animal Birth Control Rules. This was welcomed by animal rights groups, but others pointed out that the order referring the matter to a larger Bench did not explicitly detail the legal rationale for the referral.
Similarly, in the Bhushan Steel insolvency case, after the judge who had authored the order for liquidation of the company retired, a review petition was listed in open court; reviews are usually decided in chambers. The Bench, which included a new judge, recalled the judgment and ordered a fresh hearing – bypassing the stringent requirements of a curative petition.
Perhaps the most unusual instance involved a stricture passed against an Allahabad High Court judge. The Supreme Court initially directed that the judge be taken off the criminal CASES? roster. Days later, the Bench modified its own order, citing an “undated letter” from the CJI requesting reconsideration. The intervention of the CJI, through an administrative letter to influence a judicial order, was a departure as judicial orders are usually modified through a review or referral to a larger Bench.
In the presidential reference that was settled on Thursday, the President had sought the Supreme Court’s opinion on issues regarding the Governor’s powers to withhold assent to Bills. These questions had largely been settled by a two-judge Bench in a case involving the Tamil Nadu Governor just weeks prior. The advisory opinion given now, holding certain findings of the earlier two-judge Bench as erroneous, has created a conundrum about what legal position holds.
A revisit of judgments was also evident in this week’s review regarding environmental clearances. A bench led by CJI Gavai recalled a May 2025 judgment that had struck down ex-post facto or retrospective environmental clearances. The recall came after Justice Abhay S Oka, who authored the original judgment, retired. The new Bench held the previous judgment “per incuriam (passed in ignorance of law)”, reopening the debate on whether industries can operate first and get environmental permission later.
Appointments
On the administrative front, under CJI Gavai’s leadership, the Supreme Court filled all its vacancies, operating at its full sanctioned strength. The High Courts also saw a flurry of appointments.
The Bombay High Court, CJI Gavai’s parent High Court, reached a working strength of 82 judges, with 20 new appointments, the highest in recent years. Similarly, the Allahabad High Court saw 31 appointments. The Madhya Pradesh High Court saw 14 new judges and the Punjab and Haryana High Court, 12.
However, there was some controversy. For example, over the recommendation of Aarti Sathe, a former spokesperson of the BJP in Maharashtra, as a judge of the Bombay High Court. Questions were also raised regarding the appointment of two lawyers as judges of the Bombay High Court, over their association with Justice Gavai.
Within the Collegium, there was friction. Justice B V Nagarathna recorded a dissent regarding the elevation of Justice Vipul M Pancholi to the Supreme Court. She reportedly flagged issues of regional representation – Justice Pancholi’s appointment meant three judges from the Gujarat High Court would sit in the apex court – and his relatively lower standing in the all-India seniority list. While Collegium deliberations are usually confidential, the leak of this dissent pointed to fissures within the selection body.
The Collegium also made a rare admission of Executive influence in the case of Justice Atul Sreedharan. It initially recommended his transfer from the Madhya Pradesh High Court to the Chhattisgarh High Court. However, it later modified this to the Allahabad High Court, explicitly stating in its resolution that the change was made after the government “sought reconsideration”.
Mounting pendency
The Supreme Court faced the mounting challenge of case pendency under CJI Gavai, with the number crossing the 90,000 mark for the first time in decades. Data suggests that pendency rose by over 8,000 cases in just six months, with new cases outpacing disposal.
Earlier CJIs had taken measures such as setting up specialised Benches or drives to take up “unlisted cases”.
