CJI B R Gavai stressed that Article 14 envisions unequal treatment for unequals, highlighting the need for creamy layer principle within SC/ST reservations. He said children of top officials cannot be equated with those from marginalized labour backgrounds.
Goa: Chief Justice of India B R Gavai on Saturday explained his view on how equality under the Constitution should be understood. Speaking at a felicitation programme organised by the Goa High Court Bar Association at Dona Paula, the CJI said that Article 14 of the Indian Constitution does not mean that everyone should be treated in the same way.
Instead, it means that real equality is achieved when the law treats people according to their social and economic background.
He clearly stated,
“Article 14 of the Constitution doesn’t provide that there has to be equal treatment for everyone. What is contemplated is unequal treatment to unequals, so that they become equal.”
Justice Gavai, who is the second Dalit Chief Justice of India, also shared that he has faced criticism for some of his decisions, even from members of his own community. Referring to his judgment where the Supreme Court applied the principle of ‘creamy layer’ within Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST), he said,
“I was widely criticised by people belonging to my own community for my judgment recognising the need to apply the creamy layer principle within scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. But I always believed that I have to write my judgments not by the demands or desires of people, but as I understand the law and as per my own conscience.”
Explaining why he took such a view, the CJI recalled his own observations about opportunities for children from different backgrounds.
He said,
“The reason that weighed with me was that I have seen a first-generation person become an IAS officer from a reserved category. In the second generation, his son again becomes an IAS officer from the reserved category, and again in the third generation, a person becomes IAS from the same category. The question I put to myself was this: Is the son or daughter of a person who gets their education from the best of schools in Mumbai or New Delhi to be equated with the son or daughter of a mason or agricultural labourer residing in a village and receiving their education from a zilla parishad or gram panchayat school?”
He added,
“Therefore, putting the child of a labourer residing in a village and a child of a chief secretary residing in Mumbai and studying in the best of schools with the best of facilities (at the same level), in my view, hits at the very basic concept of equality, and fortunately, my view was supported by three other judges of the Supreme Court.”
Apart from reservation issues, Justice Gavai also spoke about another important judgment delivered by his bench on the issue of bulldozer demolitions in Uttar Pradesh. He pointed out that the court had to intervene because authorities were demolishing homes without following due legal process. He explained,
“I am happy we could lay down guidelines and could prohibit the executive from becoming a judge. The Constitution recognises separation of powers–of the executive, judiciary, and legislature and if the executive itself is permitted to be a judge, then we will be hitting at the very concept of separation of power.”
He stressed how important it is for the State to follow the law even when taking action against accused persons. Speaking about the houses demolished without trial, he said,
“He said that the houses of people who were not even tried but only accused of certain charges were being demolished without due procedure of law, and families of the accused also living in the houses were made to suffer for no fault of theirs. Even if a person fe convicted, heis still entitled to the rule of law, and the rule of law is paramount in our country.”
He concluded with satisfaction that the judiciary had played its role as a protector of the Constitution. In his words,
“I’m really happy that we could do something as the custodian of the Constitution for protecting the rights of citizens whose houses were being demolished without following any procedure prescribed by law.”
This speech by the Chief Justice highlights two critical aspects of Indian constitutional law: the need for social justice in reservations by addressing economic disparities within marginalised communities, and the importance of safeguarding rule of law against arbitrary actions by the executive.
Read More Reports On CJI BR Gavai
