Outgoing Chief Justice of India BR Gavai on Sunday underscored that judicial independence constituted a non-negotiable constitutional imperative and could not be reduced to the simplistic presumption that an impartial judge must, as a matter of course, rule against the current regime.
Addressing reporters at his official residence on the eve of his demitting office, the CJI emphasised that adjudication was required to be anchored strictly in the evidentiary record and the governing statutory and constitutional framework, rather than influenced by external perceptions concerning the frequency with which courts decide against the Union or State governments.
He noted that the independence of the judiciary, a basic feature of the Constitution affirmed in landmark rulings including Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) and S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981), must be safeguarded institutionally and not merely demonstrated through adjudicatory optics.
He rejected the oft-repeated public narrative that a judge’s neutrality is proven only when decisions are adverse to the government, stating that such a proposition is incompatible with the constitutional obligation to deliver justice based solely on material before the court.
CJI Gavai also addressed the functioning of the Supreme Court Collegium, reiterating that the judicial appointments process retains institutional autonomy even while considering consultative inputs from the Intelligence Bureau and the Union Ministry of Law and Justice, in line with the procedure evolved through the Second Judges Case (1993) and the Third Judges Case (1998) governing Articles 124 and 217 of the Constitution.
On the recent internal dissent recorded by Justice BV Nagarathna with respect to the recommendation to elevate Justice Vipul Pancholi to the Supreme Court, Justice Gavai stated that disagreement within the Collegium was not unprecedented. He noted that the dissent did not find support from the remaining members and that the final recommendation reflected the institutional consensus of the Collegium.
He added that his tenure also witnessed the Collegium unanimously resolving not to publish detailed reasons for selection or non-selection of candidates, a departure from past practice. The decision, he said, was adopted to ensure that adverse remarks concerning prospective candidates—particularly younger members of the Bar and the subordinate judiciary—did not inflict lasting professional prejudice.
Responding to questions regarding the inability to elevate a woman judge to the Supreme Court during his term, the Chief Justice stated that although multiple names, including members of the Supreme Court Bar and High Courts, were considered, the Collegium could not arrive at a consensus.
He acknowledged that gender representation in the higher judiciary requires continued institutional attention and observed that future courts were well-positioned to carry the effort forward.
Justice Gavai also clarified that judicial transfers were undertaken strictly on administrative grounds, either to ensure balanced distribution of judicial strength in High Courts or in cases where substantiated complaints warranted action. He stressed that transfers were processed only after verification from consultee judges and other institutional channels.
Reflecting on his personal trajectory, Justice Gavai spoke about his position as the first Buddhist and only the second Dalit Chief Justice of India. He stated that his judicial philosophy was shaped by his socio-cultural background and a lifelong engagement with the Constitution’s transformative vision.
He noted that several of his decisions drew inspiration from the Directive Principles of State Policy, echoing the jurisprudential approach adopted by Justice KK Mathew in cases such as Maruti Udyog Ltd., which underscored the role of Directive Principles in constitutional adjudication.
He stated that in balancing fundamental rights and State obligations, he viewed the Directive Principles as vital constitutional compass points aimed at advancing substantive equality and social justice.
On the growing climate of hate speech, the Chief Justice remarked that the present legal framework, including judicially evolved doctrines under Article 19(2), may not adequately address the scale and technological velocity of contemporary societal discourse.
He opined that a dedicated statutory regime may be required to regulate hate speech more effectively and provide enforceable procedural safeguards.
Addressing other matters raised at the interaction, Justice Gavai stated that he had never come under executive pressure, rejected allegations that nepotism was systemic within the judiciary, and declined to comment on specific pending matters, including the controversy concerning Justice Yashwant Verma.
He also confirmed that he would not accept any post-retirement governmental appointment, stating that he wished to devote his upcoming years to public service in his home district.
The post Judicial independence cannot be judged by frequency of rulings against government: CJI Gavai appeared first on India Legal.