The Crossbill Team
Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai has cautioned against proposals allowing the executive to unseat elected representatives without judicial oversight, warning that such measures would undermine the constitutional principle of separation of powers.
Speaking at a felicitation function organised by the Goa High Court Bar Association in Panaji on August 23, Justice Gavai’s remarks came days after the Union government introduced a bill in Parliament that seeks to remove MLAs, MPs, or ministers—including the chief minister and prime minister—if they are jailed for a month, even before their guilt is established in court.
“If the executive itself is permitted to be a judge, then we will be hitting at the very concept of separation of powers,” the CJI said, underscoring the importance of judicial scrutiny and due process in a democracy, according to a report by The Indian Express.
Justice Gavai drew attention to a significant Supreme Court ruling in 2024 against the practice of “bulldozer justice” in BJP-ruled states, including Uttar Pradesh, where houses were demolished arbitrarily without trial or proper procedure.
“We were perturbed by the fact that…people who were not even tried …their houses were being demolished without following due procedure of law. And we held that …the members of the family who reside in the house, they also are made to suffer for no fault of theirs,” he said.
He added, “And, even if a person is convicted, still he is entitled to the rule of law…I am happy we could lay down the guidelines.”
The CJI also reflected on another landmark judgment of 2024 that upheld the constitutionality of sub-classification within the Scheduled Castes (SC) for reservation benefits.
Delivered by a seven-judge bench in a 9–1 majority and led by then CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, the ruling affirmed that states can sub-categorise SC and Scheduled Tribe (ST) groups to ensure that the most disadvantaged sections receive meaningful benefits. Justice Gavai, who was part of the bench, said he wrote his judgment guided by conscience despite criticism from sections within his own community.
“The earlier speakers have also spoken about my judgement on sub-classification…I have been widely criticised for the said judgement from people belonging to my own community but I always believed that I have to write my judgement not by the demands of the people or desires of the people, but as I understand and as per my own conscience,” he said.
Highlighting inequities within the SC community, he posed a question that shaped his reasoning: “The question I put to myself (while writing the judgement) was that son or daughter of a person who gets education in the best of the schools in Mumbai and Delhi…Can he be equated with son or daughter of a mason or an agricultural labourer in a village, who takes education in a zilla parishad or gram panchayat school?”
Explaining his interpretation of equality, Justice Gavai said, “Article 14 of the Constitution does not mean that equality amongst all equals. What is contemplated is that unequal treatment to unequals so that they become equal, is what our Constitution promises. And therefore, by putting a child of a labourer residing in a village and a child of a chief secretary residing in Mumbai and studying in the best of the schools and the best of facilities, my view was that it hits at the very basic concept of equality, and fortunately, my view is supported by three other honourable judges of the SC.”
Reflecting on his judicial career, the CJI concluded that he was satisfied with the role he had played in shaping constitutional values.
“I am happy that in my journey as a judge for the last 22-23 years, I could contribute a bit in the march of the Indian Constitution, or India towards social and economic justice,” he said.
Speaking at a felicitation function organised by the Goa High Court Bar Association in Panaji on August 23, Justice Gavai’s remarks came days after the Union government introduced a bill in Parliament that seeks to remove MLAs, MPs, or ministers—including the chief minister and prime minister—if they are jailed for a month, even before their guilt is established in court.
“If the executive itself is permitted to be a judge, then we will be hitting at the very concept of separation of powers,” the CJI said, underscoring the importance of judicial scrutiny and due process in a democracy, according to a report by The Indian Express.
Justice Gavai drew attention to a significant Supreme Court ruling in 2024 against the practice of “bulldozer justice” in BJP-ruled states, including Uttar Pradesh, where houses were demolished arbitrarily without trial or proper procedure.
“We were perturbed by the fact that…people who were not even tried …their houses were being demolished without following due procedure of law. And we held that …the members of the family who reside in the house, they also are made to suffer for no fault of theirs,” he said.
He added, “And, even if a person is convicted, still he is entitled to the rule of law…I am happy we could lay down the guidelines.”
The CJI also reflected on another landmark judgment of 2024 that upheld the constitutionality of sub-classification within the Scheduled Castes (SC) for reservation benefits.
Delivered by a seven-judge bench in a 9–1 majority and led by then CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, the ruling affirmed that states can sub-categorise SC and Scheduled Tribe (ST) groups to ensure that the most disadvantaged sections receive meaningful benefits. Justice Gavai, who was part of the bench, said he wrote his judgment guided by conscience despite criticism from sections within his own community.
“The earlier speakers have also spoken about my judgement on sub-classification…I have been widely criticised for the said judgement from people belonging to my own community but I always believed that I have to write my judgement not by the demands of the people or desires of the people, but as I understand and as per my own conscience,” he said.
Highlighting inequities within the SC community, he posed a question that shaped his reasoning: “The question I put to myself (while writing the judgement) was that son or daughter of a person who gets education in the best of the schools in Mumbai and Delhi…Can he be equated with son or daughter of a mason or an agricultural labourer in a village, who takes education in a zilla parishad or gram panchayat school?”
Explaining his interpretation of equality, Justice Gavai said, “Article 14 of the Constitution does not mean that equality amongst all equals. What is contemplated is that unequal treatment to unequals so that they become equal, is what our Constitution promises. And therefore, by putting a child of a labourer residing in a village and a child of a chief secretary residing in Mumbai and studying in the best of the schools and the best of facilities, my view was that it hits at the very basic concept of equality, and fortunately, my view is supported by three other honourable judges of the SC.”
Reflecting on his judicial career, the CJI concluded that he was satisfied with the role he had played in shaping constitutional values.
“I am happy that in my journey as a judge for the last 22-23 years, I could contribute a bit in the march of the Indian Constitution, or India towards social and economic justice,” he said.
Comments (0)
Leave a Comment