CJI B.R. Gavai’s landmark judgments transformed India’s constitutional landscape, from electoral transparency and personal liberty to limits on executive power. His tenure redefined judicial boundaries while strengthening democracy and social justice.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai, sworn in as the 52nd Chief Justice of India on May 14, 2025, represents a historic moment in India’s judicial journey. As the first Buddhist and only the second Dalit after Justice K.G. Balakrishnan to hold this office, CJI Gavai’s rise from a modest background to the apex of India’s judiciary stands as a symbol of inclusive progress.
With more than 367 authored judgments and participation in over 700 Supreme Court benches, his contributions span constitutional law, criminal jurisprudence, civil liberties, environmental governance, and administrative reforms. This article explains how CJI B.R. Gavai redefined judicial limits through his most impactful rulings.
ALSO READ: From Article 370 to Bulldozer Justice: CJI BR Gavai’s Notable Verdicts
Early Life and Journey to the Judiciary
Born on November 24, 1960, in Amravati, Maharashtra, Justice Gavai grew up in a humble environment. His father, R.S. Gavai, a towering Ambedkarite figure and founder of the Republican Party of India (Gavai), deeply influenced his values. Washing utensils, fetching water, and helping his mother, Kamaltai, during his childhood shaped his understanding of ground realities.
After earning his B.A. LL.B. from Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar College of Law, he enrolled as an advocate in 1985, beginning his career under Barrister Raja S. Bhonsale at the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court. His dedication saw him become:
- Assistant Government Pleader (1992)
- Additional Public Prosecutor
- Government Pleader & Public Prosecutor (2000)
Justice Gavai became an Additional Judge of the Bombay High Court in 2003 and a permanent judge in 2005. He served across benches at:
- Mumbai
- Nagpur
- Aurangabad
- Panaji
On 24 May 2019, he was elevated to the Supreme Court, marking the return of SC representation from the Scheduled Caste community after almost a decade. His judicial acumen and commitment to constitutional values led to his appointment as CJI in 2025.
Landmark Judgments
Justice Gavai’s jurisprudence expands constitutional boundaries, strengthens individual liberties, and reins in arbitrary state power. Below are his most influential rulings:
1. Demonetisation Verdict (2023): Deference to Executive Power
In Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, Justice Gavai authored the majority opinion upholding the 2016 demonetisation scheme. He held:
- The Union had the power to demonetise all series of a denomination.
- There was sufficient consultation with the RBI.
- The measure satisfied the test of proportionality.
This verdict expanded the constitutional scope of economic policy decisions undertaken by the government.
2. Electoral Bonds Judgment (2024): Transparency Over Political Secrecy
Justice Gavai was part of the Constitution Bench that struck down the Electoral Bonds Scheme, finding it violated:
- Citizens’ Right to Information
- Transparency in political funding
- Principles of free and fair elections
This landmark ruling strengthened participatory democracy and curbed opaque political financing.
3. Bulldozer Demolition Case (2024): Limits on State Power
In Re: Demolition of Structures (2024), Justice Gavai strongly condemned “bulldozer justice.” He ruled:
- Demolitions without due process violate Articles 14, 19, and 21.
- Issuing a 15-day notice is mandatory.
- Authorities must avoid demolitions meant to punish, not regulate.
His opinion reaffirmed the judiciary’s role in checking executive excesses.
4. Article 370 Abrogation (2023): Constitutional Clarity
As part of a five-judge Bench, he upheld the abrogation of Article 370, holding that:
- The President and Parliament had the constitutional authority to restructure J&K’s special status.
- J&K’s integration with India was never conditional or temporary.
This clarified long-pending constitutional uncertainty.
5. Sub-Classification of SCs (2024): Nuanced Social Justice
In State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh, Justice Gavai supported:
- Sub-classification within the Scheduled Castes
- Application of the creamy layer principle
- Use of empirical data for reservation policies
This judgment aims to ensure affirmative action reaches the most marginalized groups.
6. Protection of Personal Liberty (2023–2024)
Justice Gavai repeatedly ensured that courts remain guardians of citizens’ liberty:
- Granted bail to Teesta Setalvad, calling the High Court’s order “perverse.”
- Stayed Rahul Gandhi’s conviction, restoring his right to participate in democracy.
- Directed safeguards against arbitrary arrests under UAPA & PMLA.
His approach reinforces that liberty is the rule, not the exception.
7. Arbitration Reforms: Reducing Procedural Barriers
Justice Gavai authored judgments clarifying:
- Unstamped arbitration agreements are enforceable
- Emergency awards issued by foreign arbitrators are valid in India
This strengthened India’s reputation as a global arbitration hub.
8. Anti-Corruption Jurisprudence
In Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Bench held:
- Public servants may be convicted for bribery based on circumstantial evidence, even if the complainant turns hostile.
This expanded the tools for prosecuting corruption.
Recent Judgments: Before Retirement
1. Madras Bar Association Case
The Supreme Court has struck down key provisions of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, ruling that the government had unlawfully reintroduced provisions earlier declared unconstitutional. A Bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Vinod Chandran held that the Act violated the principles of separation of powers and judicial independence by effectively overriding binding judgments without curing the defects previously identified.
The Court criticised the Central government for repeatedly ignoring its directions on tribunal functioning and warned that such litigation wastes valuable judicial time amidst heavy case backlogs. It reaffirmed that the principles laid down in the Madras Bar Association (MBA-4 and MBA-5) cases would continue governing tribunal appointments and tenure.
The Court also ordered the establishment of a National Tribunals Commission within three months, emphasising that piecemeal amendments would not fix the larger systemic issues. It clarified that the tenure of ITAT members and earlier appointments would continue to be governed by older statutes and the MBA rulings, not the shortened terms in the 2021 Act.
The Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, had replaced the earlier Ordinance, which the Court had already criticised for limiting members’ tenure to four years and setting a minimum appointment age of 50. Petitioners challenged provisions affecting tenure, eligibility, and the composition of the Search-cum-Selection Committee, arguing that they gave the executive excessive control. Senior advocates Arvind Datar and others appeared for the petitioners, while Attorney General R. Venkataramani represented the Centre.
Separately, during hearings in the long-pending Madras Bar Association case, the CJI expressed displeasure at repeated adjournment requests by the Attorney General, calling it unfair and disruptive. The Court stressed the urgency of resolving long-standing issues regarding tribunal independence.
The Central government defended the 2021 Act, arguing that it does not violate fundamental rights and falls within its legislative authority. The Act had also dissolved several appellate tribunals and reassigned their functions to courts, as part of a broader rationalisation effort that began in 2015.
Case Title: MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION vs. UNION OF INDIA
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 1018 OF 2021
2. All India Judges Association Case
A five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai delivered a major ruling on the issue of stagnation and seniority disputes among judicial officers. The Bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, K. Vinod Chandran, and Joymalya Bagchi, held that seniority in the Higher Judicial Service (HJS) must be determined strictly by continuous length of service under an annual roster system, regardless of whether an officer entered the cadre as a Direct Recruit (DR), Limited Departmental Competitive Examination candidate (LDCE), or Regular Promotee (RP).
The Court clarified that once officers enter the HJS, they lose the “birthmark” of their recruitment source. Seniority cannot be reshaped based on personal dissatisfaction or career aspirations, and the discomfort of regular promotees is not a legally valid reason to alter the system. The Bench stressed that experience as a Civil Judge cannot justify creating a separate class of District Judges.
The Court directed all States and Union Territories to amend their service rules within three months to reflect the new guidelines. These directions apply prospectively and do not reopen past seniority decisions. The Bench also noted that the guidelines may be revisited once the Rajanish judgment is implemented.
This decision resolves I.A. No. 230675 of 2025 in the long-running All India Judges Association case. The application, filed by Amicus Curiae Siddharth Bhatnagar, highlighted severe stagnation in promotions—especially for Civil Judges who rarely advanced to Principal District Judge or High Court Judge positions—discouraging young lawyers from judicial service. Recognising the systemic imbalance, the matter was earlier referred to the Constitution Bench for authoritative clarification.
The judgment is expected to bring long-needed clarity to seniority, promotion, and career progression across India’s judicial services.
Case Title: All India Judges Association and Ors. Vs. Union Of India and Ors.
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1022 OF 1989
3. Presidential Reference Case
A five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai continued hearing the Presidential Reference seeking clarity on whether the Supreme Court can impose fixed timelines on Governors and the President for granting assent to State Bills. The reference was made under Article 143, following the Court’s April 2025 judgment in the State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor case, which held that Governors cannot indefinitely delay action on Bills.
During the reading of its opinion, the Bench discussed the constitutional options available to Governors under Article 200. The Union Government argued that Governors have four choices: assent, withhold, return, or reserve for the President, while the Opposition maintained there are only three. The Court stressed that when a Governor returns a Bill, clear reasons must be communicated, as this dialogue reflects the federal structure.
The Chief Justice clarified that a Governor must normally act on the advice of the State Cabinet and cannot exercise unrestrained discretion. The Court held that the Governor cannot “withhold assent” without explanation, and effectively has only three valid options:
- Grant assent,
- Return with reasons, or
- Reserve the Bill for the President.
On the core issue, the Court ruled that judicially prescribed deadlines or “deemed assent” would violate the separation of powers. Imposing timelines would amount to the judiciary intruding into the constitutional functions of the Governor and the President. However, the Court said that prolonged and unexplained delays by a Governor remain subject to judicial scrutiny.
The Bench also clarified that the President is not obliged to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion every time a Bill is reserved for consideration. The Presidential Reference arose after President Droupadi Murmu sought clarification on whether judicially imposed timelines for assenting to Bills are constitutionally permissible.
This follows the Supreme Court’s April 8 ruling that while Article 200 does not specify a time limit, Governors must act within a “reasonable time,” and that the President should decide on reserved Bills within three months, providing reasons for any delay.
President Murmu submitted 14 questions to the Court, raising issues such as:
- The exact constitutional options available to Governors under Article 200,
- Whether Governors and the President are bound by judicial timelines,
- Whether their decisions are justiciable,
- Whether courts can review actions before a Bill becomes law,
- The extent of judicial powers under Article 142, and
- The scope of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction in Union–State disputes.
Kerala and Tamil Nadu oppose the maintainability of the Reference, while the Centre supports it.
Case Title: Re: Assent, Withholding, or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and President of India
SPL. REF. No. 1/2025
Judicial Philosophy
Justice Gavai’s rulings consistently demonstrate a profound respect for constitutional supremacy and the fundamental principles of the rule of law. His judgments demonstrate a strong emphasis on procedural fairness, ensuring that due process is never compromised. Throughout his judicial career, he has shown clear empathy toward marginalized communities, reinforcing the idea that constitutional rights must be meaningful for those at the fringes of society.
At the same time, he maintains a vigilant approach toward checking executive overreach, safeguarding the balance of power envisioned by the framers of the Constitution. His overall judicial philosophy reveals a firm belief in expanding access to justice, making the legal system more inclusive, transparent, and responsive to the needs of all citizens.
In an informal interaction before taking charge, he declared:
“The Constitution is supreme.”
Challenges as CJI
Justice Gavai’s tenure, though only six months, came at a particularly critical moment for the Supreme Court. He stepped into leadership at a time when public trust in the judiciary had been visibly declining, creating an urgent need to reinforce institutional credibility and transparency. Alongside this, he carefully navigated ongoing impeachment proceedings involving certain High Court judges, a responsibility that demands both firmness and sensitivity to preserve the integrity of the judicial system.
He also inherited several major constitutional challenges that require decisive and principled adjudication. Ensuring the timely disposal of cases and improving transparency in judicial appointments remained central expectations during his tenure.
Crucially, one of the first major matters before him as CJI concerned the challenges to the amendments to the Waqf Act. This case was likely to have far-reaching implications and will test the Court’s approach under his leadership.
Conclusion: CJI B.R. Gavai’s Enduring Legacy
From his humble beginnings in Amravati to the highest judicial office, CJI B.R. Gavai’s journey is a testament to merit, perseverance, and constitutional commitment. His judgments have expanded the frontiers of Individual liberty, Executive accountability, Electoral transparency, Social justice, and Judicial independence.
By redefining judicial limits, Justice Gavai has left an indelible mark on Indian constitutional law, ensuring that the judiciary remains the ultimate safeguard of democracy.
Read More Reports On CJI Gavai
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Landmark Verdicts
