A staunch believer of the Constitution, Justice B.R. Gavai, 52nd Chief Justice of India, bids farewell to the Supreme Court

“The Constitution of India carries within it the heartbeat of those who were never meant to be heard, and the vision of a country where equality is not just promised but pursued. It compels the State not only to protect rights but to actively uplift, to affirm, to repair”¹.

:Chief Justice of India, B.R. Gavai

He has credited the Constitution more than often for his life and how his career turned out to be!

Justice Bhushan Ramakrishna Gavai, the 52nd Chief Justice of India, who may have started his legal in 1985, but he was never a stranger to the rule of law, given the fact that he grew in a family involved in social activism. Justice B.R. Gavai carried this belief in the Constitution further in his professional life as an advocate, as a Judge of Bombay High Court and Supreme Court and then as the Chief Justice of India. His career spanning decades reveal a nuanced understanding and commitment towards upholding the Rule of Law and efficient judiciary. His judgments and initiatives have led to wider discourses within the real and virtual society and most importantly, have enriched the Indian jurisprudence.

As Justice B.R. Gavai bids farewell, it is just the right time to delve into his career which hold the imprint of his beliefs towards judicial integrity, Constitutional morals and the Rule of Law.

Early Life

Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai was born on 24-11-1960 at Amravati to late R.S. Gavai, who was a noted social activist, Member of Parliament and former Governor of Bihar and Kerala².

Career as an Advocate [1985-2003]

At the age of 25, Justice Gavai joined the Bar and enrolled as an advocate in 1985 and started practicing at the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court. Justice Gavai practiced independently at Bombay High Court from 1987 to 1990 and after 1990, practised mainly before the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court. His practise was mostly focussed on issues related to Constitutional Law and Administrative Law³.

Justice Gavai served both as an Assistant Government Pleader and Additional Public Prosecutor in the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court from August 1992 to July 1993. He was later appointed as Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor for Nagpur Bench on 17-01-2000.

Judicial Career [2003-2025]

He was appointed as a Judge of the Bombay High Court on 14-11-2003 and became a Permanent Judge of the Bombay High Court on 12-11-2005. Justice Gavai presided over Benches having all types of assignments at the Principal Seat in Mumbai as well as Benches at Nagpur, Aurangabad and Panaji.⁴

After 16 years of Judgeship at the Bombay High Court, Justice B.R. Gavai was elevated as a Judge of the Supreme Court of India on 24-05-2019. The Collegium in recommending Justice Gavai’s name for the Supreme Court, gave due weight to his seniority, integrity, merit and due representation in the Supreme Court⁵.

*Did You Know? Justice Gavai became the first Supreme Court Judge belonging to a Scheduled Caste, to be appointed in 9 years after Justice K.G. Balakrishnan’s retirement in 2010⁶. He also became the 1st Buddhist to become the Chief Justice of India.

On 14-5-2025, Justice B.R. Gavai was sworn in as the 52nd Chief Justice of India thereby succeeding Justice Sanjiv Khanna. Justice BR Gavai’s name for the position of Chief Justice was recommended by Justice Sanjiv Khanna on 16-4-2025 and his appointment was confirmed by the Ministry of Law and Justice on 29-4-2025. Justice Gavai’s elevation as the Chief Justice of India became a milestone moment in the history of Supreme Court as he became the first Buddhist⁷ to hold the position of CJI and only the 2nd Chief Justice belonging to the Scheduled Caste community after former CJI, Justice K.G. Balakrishnan⁸.

Key Initiatives

The Supreme Court of India issued elaborate Guidelines for Retention and Destruction of Records, 2025 (the Guidelines) with the objective to promote coherence, accountability, and efficiency in managing administrative records, including institutional decisions, policy implementations, inter-departmental correspondences, audits, and engagements with external stakeholders.

Under the stewardship of CJI B.R. Gavai, the Supreme Court (‘SC’) notified the Supreme Court (Amendment) Rules, 2025 to introduce modification to its operational schedule. These amendments aim to extend SC’s working hours to enhance judicial efficiency and optimize court operations. The changes will take effect from 14-07- 2025.

In April 2025, CJI Gavai launched NALSA (Jagriti) Scheme, 2025, a justice awareness for grassroots information and transparency initiative⁹.

CJI B.R. Gavai also inaugurated a new Circuit Bench of his parent High Court of Bombay at Kolhapur¹⁰.

Notable Viewpoints

While delivering a lecture on “The Living Document: 75 Years of the Constitution of India, and the Enduring Relevance of Dr. BR Ambedkar”, CJI B.R. Gavai described the Constitution as a living document of justice, shaping the actions of the legislature, executive, and judiciary alike. He affirmed that Dr. Ambedkar’s vision continues to guide India, not only in its legal evolution but also in its pursuit of a more inclusive and equitable society. He further recalled Dr. Ambedkar’s final speech to the Constituent Assembly, where he asserted that liberty, equality, and fraternity must function together—not as separate ideals, but as interdependent principles that sustain a democratic society.

On 07-05-2025, Justice BR Gavai, the then Chief Justice of India (Designate), released EBC’s “Narratives off the Bench — A Judge Speaks,” authored by Justice NV Ramana, the former Chief Justice of India, alongside Justice Surya Kant, Judge, Supreme Court of India and Justice Vikram Nath, Judge, Supreme Court of India. Justice Gavai acknowledged the profound influence that Justice Ramana’s leadership and values had on him. Recalling his first meeting with Justice Ramana in April 2019, Justice Gavai expressed that Justice Ramana had always been a guiding figure, not only professionally but personally as well.

Inaugurating ICA conference on ‘Arbitrating Indo-UK Commercial Disputes’, CJI Gavai welcomed developments like hybrid dispute resolution mechanisms, online dispute resolution (ODR), and India’s embrace of technology to bridge physical distances. These online systems have made physical distances irrelevant, he noted, referencing India’s adoption of virtual arbitration and hybrid dispute resolution systems. Justice Gavai lauded the establishment of institutions like the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration (MCIA), and the India International Arbitration Centre (IIAC). He said- these centres have played a key role in administering disputes outside the judicial setup. He also acknowledged the contribution of the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) as a model of excellence, while noting the need for continued collaboration and learning.

While presiding over the North Zone Regional Conference on “In Conversation with the Bar — A Shared Vision for Legal Transformation”, CJI Gavai emphasised the constitutional mandate of ensuring last-mile access to justice, especially for marginalised and underprivileged communities. “NALSA, under the leadership of Justice Surya Kant and in future Justice Vikram Nath, will continue to pave the way for a stronger, more inclusive justice delivery system. Women empowerment remains a cornerstone of this vision”.

In a momentous event held at the prestigious Oxford Union, Justice B.R. Gavai, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of India, delivered a powerful keynote address on the theme “From Representation to Realisation: Embodying the Constitution’s promise.” The session was a significant reflection on the enduring legacy of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and its relevance in contemporary society. Justice Gavai powerfully underscored the transformative nature of the Indian Constitution, describing it as “a social document, one that does not avert its gaze from the brutal truths of caste, poverty, exclusion, and injustice.” He emphasised that the Constitution does not indulge in the fiction that all are already equal in a deeply divided society; instead, it has the moral courage to intervene, “to rewrite the script, to recalibrate power, and to restore dignity.” According to Justice Gavai, the Constitution “carries within it the heartbeat of those who were never meant to be heard, and the vision of a country where equality is not just promised but pursued.” In its deepest essence, he said, it is “a moral declaration—that the lives of the oppressed are not accidents of fate, but souls entitled to justice, worthy of representation, opportunity, and voice.” Justice Gavai reminisced about a profound and often overlooked truth from the framing of India’s Constitution: that many of the country’s most vulnerable communities were not merely the subjects of constitutional concern but were active participants in its making.

CJI Gavai also holds a strong belief that when Supreme Court decides a case, it is just not the Judges, but also the bar, the registry, and the staff that go into decision-making¹¹.

Notable Judgements

*Did you Know? CJI B.R. Gavai has authored over 300 judgments¹² over the course of his 6-year tenure in the Supreme Court.

Some important decisions that Justice Gavai has been a part of, are as follows-

Presidential Reference on Powers of Governor and President vis-a-vis Assent, Withholding and Reservation of Bills

In a significant judicial development, a 5- Judge Constitution Bench in Assent, Withholding or Reservation of Bills by the Governor and the President of India, In Re¹³, opined that discharge of the Governor’s function under Article 200 and that of President under Article 201, is not justiciable. The Court cannot enter into a merits review of the decision so taken. However, in glaring circumstances of inaction that is prolonged, unexplained, and indefinite — the Court can issue a limited mandamus for the Governor to discharge his function under Article 200 within a reasonable time period, without making any observations on the merits of the exercise of his discretion.

The Bench comprising of B.R. Gavai, CJI, Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ., opined that in the absence of constitutionally prescribed time limits, and the manner of exercise of power by the Governor and President, it would not be appropriate for Supreme Court to judicially prescribe timelines. The Bench further opined that paragraphs of the judgment in State of T.N. v. Governor of T.N., (2025) 8 SCC 1, pertaining to the imposition of timelines on the Governor under Article 200 were erroneous.

Annual 4-point roster to determine seniority in HJS; This & other Supreme Court Directions impacting statewide HJS cadres

In All India Judges Association v. Union of India¹⁴, while considering this matter seeking to revisit the principles governing the determination of seniority within the cadre of statewide Higher Judicial Services (HJS), the 5-Judge Bench of B.R. Gavai, CJI, Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, K. Vinod Chandran and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ., stated that the Court laid down general and mandatory guidelines which shall, henceforth, be incorporated into the respective statutory service rules governing the determination of inter se seniority among officers appointed from different sources to the Higher Judicial Services.

Judicial Officers with 7 years’ experience in law practice are eligible for direct appointment as District Judge/Additional District Judge: Supreme Court

In a landmark ruling titled Rejanish K.V. v. K. Deepa, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2196, a 5-Judge Constitution Bench comprising of B.R. Gavai, CJI.*, M.M. Sundresh, Aravind Kumar, S.C. Sharma and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ., while deciding a reference on issues related to appointment of Judicial Officers as District Judges, held the following:

• Judicial Officers who have already completed 7 years in Bar before they were recruited in the subordinate judicial service, would be entitled for being appointed as a District Judge/Additional District Judge in the selection process for the post of District Judges in the direct recruitment process.

• The eligibility for appointment as a District Judge/Additional District Judge is to be seen at the time of application.

• Though there is no eligibility prescribed under Article 233(2) of the Constitution for a person already in judicial service of the Union or of the State for being appointed as District Judge; in order to provide a level playing field, the Court directed that a candidate applying as an in-service candidate should have 7 years’ combined experience as a Judicial Officer and an advocate.

• A person who has been or who is in judicial service and has a combined experience of 7 years or more as an advocate or a Judicial Officer, would be eligible for being considered and appointed as a District Judge/Additional District Judge under Article 233 of the Constitution.

• In order to ensure level playing field, the Court directed that the minimum age for being considered and appointed as a District Judge/Additional District Judge for both advocates and Judicial Officers would be 35 years of age as on the date of application.

• The Court held that view taken in Satya Narain Singh v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, (1985) 1 SCC 225, till Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi, (2018) 4 SCC 619, which takes a view contrary to what has been held above, do not lay down the correct proposition of law.

Ex-Post Environmental Clearances: What the Supreme Court’s 2:1 Verdict Says — Majority v Dissent

In Confederation of Real Estate Developers of India (CREDAI) v. Vanashakti¹⁵, seeking review of the earlier judgment in Vanashakti v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1139 (Vanashakti judgment) which had barred post-facto (ex-post) environmental clearances (ECs), the 3-judge bench of BR Gavai, CJI and K. Vinod Chandran, and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ, in a 2:1 verdict recalled the Vanashakti judgment and has held that retrospective ECs may be granted, but only for “permissible activities” as defined in the relevant regulatory framework. Further, these ECs will typically require payment of penalties/fines. BR Gavai, CJI, and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ formed the majority, while Ujjal Bhuyan, J dissented.

Gavai, CJI, noted that in Vanashakti judgment , the Court had held that even after the payment of penalty, if the project is under construction, the same has to be stopped and demolished and even if operation has already commenced, the same has to be stopped and demolished. He, however, observed that is approach contradicts the framework of the 2017 Notification and the 2021 OM, which allow environmental clearances only for projects that are legally permissible and mandate demolition only where a project is impermissible or cannot be made environmentally sustainable.

Supreme Court quashes Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 provisions on appointment, tenure; Directs Centre to establish National Tribunals Commission

In Madras Bar Assn. v. Union of India¹⁶, wherein the validity of the key provisions of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 (‘Impugned Act’) was challenged, the Division Bench of B.R. Gavai, CJ.* and K. Vinod Chandra, J., stated that the Impugned Act directly contradicts binding judicial pronouncements that have repeatedly clarified the standards governing the appointment, tenure, and functioning of tribunal members. The Court stated that merely reproducing the very provisions which were earlier struck down, amounts to a legislative override, which is an attempt to nullify binding judicial directions without addressing the underlying constitutional infirmities. Accordingly, the Court struck down the impugned provisions as unconstitutional.

The Court further granted the Union of India a period of four months to establish a National Tribunals Commission, which must adhere to the principles concerning independence from executive control, professional expertise, transparent processes, and oversight mechanisms that reinforce public confidence in the system.

No Tiger Safari in critical habitat zone, Jim Corbett ecology restoration: Inside comprehensive directions by Supreme Court

While considering In Re: Corbett¹⁷, pertaining to conservation of tigers and their habitat, restoration of Jim Corbett Tiger Reserve and permitting tiger safaris, the 3-Judge Bench of B.R. Gavai, CJI*, Augustine George Masih and A.S. Chandurkar, JJ., directed that Tiger Safari shall not be permitted in the core or a critical tiger habitat area. The Court further directed the State to restore the ecological damage caused to the Corbett Tiger Reserve under the supervision, guidance and control of the CEC. The entire area of the Tiger Reserve (including ESZs of the Protected Areas) shall be notified as “Silence Zone” under the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, within 3 months from the date of this judgment. Further, the authorities of Tiger Reserve would be empowered to enforce the regulation of maintaining silence zone and acting under relevant statutes.

Supreme Court directs Centre to constitute Delhi Ridge Management Board; highlights need for its statutory backing for effective functioning

The Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2386, adjudicated on the issue concerning the various bodies/authorities monitoring, regulating and permitting construction activities in the Delhi Ridge, widely known as the “Green Lungs” of the city, an area of vital ecological and geographical significance in the National Capital Territory. The Division Bench of B.R. Gavai, CJ* and K. Vinod Chandran, J., directed Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change to constitute Delhi Ridge Management Board (‘DRMB’), by issuing notification under Section 3(3) of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 (‘EP Act’). The Court stated that a statutory backing would ensure that the fundamental principles of administration would directly apply to the Board. Like the CEC, if the DRMB is also given a statutory status, it will be able to function effectively and be accountable. Thus, the Court directed DRMB to be a single window authority insofar as issues concerning Delhi Ridge is concerned.

‘High Courts are expected to keep their hands away when Supreme Court is seized of any judicial matter’: SC in Corbett Tiger Reserve case

While considering In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2325, wherein the Supreme Court while dealing with a suo moto action pertaining to Corbett Tiger Reserve, noted that its order on sanctioning prosecution of an officer was stayed by Uttaranchal High Court; the Division Bench of B.R. Gavai, CJI and K. Vinod Chandran, J., opined that the High Court is a Constitutional Court and not inferior to the Supreme Court. However, in the judicial matters, when Supreme Court is seized of the matter it is expected of the High Courts to keep their hands away.

Supreme Court temporarily relaxes complete ban on firecrackers in NCR for Diwali 2025

In a significant decision right before the festival of lights, the Division Bench of B.R. Gavai, CJI., and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ., in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2244 permitted the sale of Green Crackers as uploaded on the website of NEERI, shall be permitted commencing from 18-10-2025 till 20-10-2025. The district administration and the police shall ensure that use of firecrackers shall be confined between 6:00 AM to 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM on the 2 days i.e., the one before and on the Diwali day. The sale of these products shall be permitted only from the designated locations in the entire National Capital Region (NCR) which shall be identified by the District Collectors/Commissioners in consultation with the District Superintendent of Police and given wide publicity.

Breakdown of Supreme Court verdict in Bhushan Power & Steel Insolvency case

In Kalyani Transco v. Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2093 filed under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, (‘IBC’) erstwhile promoters and various operational creditors of the corporate debtor challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 17-02-2020, which had been passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (‘NCLAT’) in relation to the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Proceedings of Bhushan Power and Steel Limited (‘BPSL’). The three-judge bench of B.R. Gavai, CJI, and Satish Chandra Sharma and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. dismissed the appeals filed by the erstwhile promoters-cum-directors of BPSL and upheld the NCLAT’s judgment dated 17-02-2020. The Court strongly rejected the arguments raised by the appellants and the CoC regarding post-approval claims, particularly concerning Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization (‘EBITDA’).

Waqf Amendment Act 2025: Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling Explained

In Waqf Amendment Act, 2025 (1), In re, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1978, challenging the validity of several provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 (‘Impugned Act’), the division bench of BR Gavai, CJI* and AG Masih, J. concluded that, in the totality of the circumstances, no case had been made out to stay the provisions of the entire statute. Therefore, the prayer for a stay of the impugned Act was rejected. However, to protect the interests of all parties and balance the equities during the pendency of this batch of matters, the court issued several directions in relation to the stay on certain provisions of the Amended Waqf Act.

Supreme Court restores minimum three-year legal practice requirement for eligibility in civil judge exams

In All India Judges Assn. v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1184, pertaining to the qualification, promotion and selection of candidates who are desirous of either entering the Judicial Services as Civil Judge (Junior Division) or Higher Judicial Service, and with regard to the promotions at different levels within the Judicial Services, the three-judge bench of BR Gavai, CJI and AG Masih and K Vinod Chandran, JJ., expressed the view that a system reserving 10% of the posts in the Cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division) for promotion of Civil Judges (Junior Division) through the LDCE mechanism should be introduced. Such a system, the Court noted, would serve as an incentive for meritorious candidates by enabling earlier promotional opportunities. The Court clarified that these reserved seats would be filled through the same process as the one adopted for filling vacancies in the District Judge Cadre through LDCE. It further recommended that the minimum experience required for a Judicial Officer in the Cadre of Civil Judge (Junior Division) to appear for such an examination should be three years.

Supreme Court upholds ‘One Rank One Pension’ for all retired High Court Judges; Orders equal and full pension

In High Court Judges Pension Refixation Considering Service Period in District Judiciary & High Court, In re, (2025) 7 SCC 674, concerning the pension payable to retired Judges of the High Courts, including the payment of gratuity and other terminal benefits, a 3- Judge Bench of BR Gavai, CJI.*, Augustine George Masih, and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. issued the following directions:

• The Union of India was directed to pay the full pension of Rs. 15,00,000/- per annum to a retired Chief Justice of the High Court.

• The Union of India was directed to pay the full pension of Rs. 13,50,000/- per annum to a retired Judge of the High Court, other than a retired Chief Justice of the High Court.

• A retired Judge of the High Court was deemed to include retired Judges who had served as Additional Judges of the High Court.

• The Union of India was instructed to follow the principle of One Rank One Pension for all retired High Court Judges, regardless of their entry source (whether from the District Judiciary or the Bar) and irrespective of the number of years served either as a District Judge or a High Court Judge.

• All retired Judges were to be paid full pension as stipulated.

• In the case of a retired High Court Judge who had previously served in the District Judiciary, the Union of India was directed to pay full pension, irrespective of any break in service between the date of retirement from the District Judiciary and the date of assumption of charge as a High Court Judge.

• For retired High Court Judges who had served in the District Judiciary and entered it after the introduction of the Contributory Pension Scheme or New Pension Scheme, the Union of India was directed to pay full pension.

• The States were directed to refund the entire amount contributed under NPS to the retired Judges, along with any accrued dividends. However, the contributions made by the State Governments were to be retained by the respective States, including any accrued dividends.

• The Union of India was directed to pay family pension to the widow or family members of a High Court Judge who died in harness, regardless of whether the Judge was a Permanent Judge or an Additional Judge of the High Court.

• The Union of India was directed to pay gratuity to the widow or family members of a High Court Judge who died in harness by adding 10 years to the period of service undergone by the Judge, regardless of whether the minimum qualifying service required under Section 17A of the HCJ Act had been completed.

• The Union of India was directed to pay all allowances due to a retired High Court Judge as per the provisions of the HCJ Act. This included Leave Encashment under Section 4A of the HCJ Act, Commutation of Pensions under Section 19, Provident Fund under Section 20 of the HCJ Act, and other applicable allowances.

[Forest Conservation] | Supreme Court directs constitution of SITs to investigate illegal conversions of Forest Land

While considering Forest Land Construction of Multistoreyed Buildings in Maharashtra, In re, (2025) 9 SCC 359; the Bench of B.R. Gavai, CJ.*, Augustine George Masih and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ., noted that the instant case was a classic example of as to how the nexus between the Politicians, Bureaucrats and the Builders can result in the conversion of precious Forest Land for commercial purposes under the garb of resettlement of people belonging to the backward class from whose ancestors, agricultural land was acquired for public purpose.

Supreme Court directs High Courts to frame or amend rules for recruitment and service conditions for Court Managers; Issues directions for their regularisation

In a matter concerning a unique issue regarding the role of Court Managers, who were introduced by the 13th Finance Commission (2010-2015) to improve the efficiency of court management, the objective was to provide administrative support to judges, ultimately leading to enhanced case disposal, the three Judge Bench of BR Gavai, CJI*, Augustine George Masih and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ., in All India Judges Assn. v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1146, held that all High Courts in the country shall frame or amend the rules concerning the recruitment and conditions of service for Court Managers. They must take the Assam Rules of 2018 as the model and submit them to the respective State Governments for approval within three months from the date of this judgment. The High Courts and State Governments are free to make suitable modifications to accommodate their specific needs.

SC directs Speaker of Telangana Legislative Assembly to expeditiously conclude disqualification proceedings against defected BRS MLAs

In Padi Kaushik Reddy v. State of Telangana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1576, the Court considered appeals were filed by MLAs belonging to Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) who had been seeking disqualification of former BRS MLAs from Telangana Legislative Assembly on grounds of defection and had been aggrieved by the delay/inaction shown by the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly. While considering these appeals, the Division Bench of B.R. Gavai, CJ* and A.G. Masih, J., declined to accede to the appellants’ request of deciding the question of disqualification of the defected MLAs stating that, judicial precedents have consistently held that the Speaker is the authority who should decide the issue regarding disqualification at the first instance. However, in view of specific findings in Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 651 and Subhash Desai v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 2 SCC 719, the Court deemed it fit to direct the Speaker of Telangana Legislative Assembly to conclude the disqualification proceedings pending against the 10 MLAs pertaining to the present appeals/petition as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within a period of three months from the date of this judgment.

The Court further directed that the Speaker would not permit any of the MLAs who are sought to be disqualified, to protract the proceedings. In the event, any of such MLAs attempt to protract the proceedings, the Speaker would draw an adverse inference against such of the MLAs.

‘When a citizen wins a court ruling, others in similar circumstances should automatically benefit’: SC grants permanent commission to woman Army officer

In Suprita Chandel v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3664, filed against the order passed by the Armed forces Tribunal, wherein the Tribunal dismissed the application of the appellant and declined her prayer for reliefs similar to the ones granted by the judgment dated 22-01-2014 of the AFT Principal Bench to the applicants therein, who were identically situated with the appellant , the division bench of BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan, JJ. while setting aside the impugned judgment, exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, directing that the appellant be granted a Permanent Commission with effect from the same date as the similarly situated persons who were granted benefits pursuant to the judgment dated 22-01-2014 by the Principal Bench of the AFT.

Bulldozer actions against properties for simply being an accused or convict, unconstitutional; Executive cannot be a Judge and demolish properties: SC

In Directions in the matter of demolition of structures, In Re, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3291, the Division Bench of BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan, JJ. condemning the bulldozer actions held that the properties/ houses of the houses of accused persons cannot be demolished by the State machinery only on the ground that they are accused or convicted of a crime. The Court laid down stringent norms to curb these bulldozer actions. The Court said that if such actions take place without following the process of law, the family of the accused/ convict will be entitled to compensation and the officers violating any of the directions laid down by the Court would face initiation of contempt proceedings in addition to the prosecution. The Court also clarified that if the demolition violates the orders of the Court, the officer/officers concerned will be held responsible for restitution of the demolished property at his/their personal cost in addition to payment of damages.

“If the executive in an arbitrary manner demolishes the houses of citizens only on the ground that they are accused of a crime, then it acts contrary to the principles of ‘rule of law’. If the executive acts as a judge and inflicts penalty of demolition on a citizen on the ground that he is an accused, it violates the principle of ‘separation of powers’.”

‘Indra Sawhney did not limit sub-classification to OBCs; Sub-classification of SC/STs permissible’

In State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1860, the seven Judge Constitution Bench comprising of Dr. DY Chandrachud, CJI, B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M. Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra, and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ., by a majority of 6:1, held that sub-classification of Scheduled Castes among reserved categories is permissible for granting separate quotas for more backwards within the SC categories. Justice Bela M. Trivedi dissented holding that such sub-classification is not permissible.

B.R. Gavai, J., who was part of the majority decision, stated that nearly 75 years have elapsed from the day on which the Constitution was brought into effect. Special provisions have been made for the advancement of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and backward class of citizens. “The State must evolve a policy for identifying the creamy layer even from the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes so as exclude them from the benefit of affirmative action. In my view, only this and this alone can achieve the real equality as enshrined under the Constitution”.

Gavai, J., majorly concluded that, sub-classification amongst the Scheduled Castes for giving more beneficial treatment is permissible in law; that for doing so, the State will have to justify that the group for which more beneficial treatment is provided is inadequately represented as compared to the other castes; that while doing so, the State will have to justify the same on the basis of empirical data that a sub-class in whose favour such more beneficial treatment is provided is not adequately represented; the criteria for exclusion of the creamy layer from the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for the purpose of affirmative action could be different from the criteria as applicable to the Other Backward Classes.

Delhi Excise Liquor Policy Scam| Supreme Court grants bail to Manish Sisodia in both ED and CBI cases

In Manish Sisodia v. Enforcement Directorate, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920, the Division Bench of BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan, JJ. granted him bail in both the cases registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Directorate of Enforcement under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘PC Act’) and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, (‘PMLA’) respectively. The Court was concerned about the prolonged period of incarceration suffered by Sisodia. On consideration of various earlier pronouncements, the Court emphasised that the right to speedy trial is a fundamental right within the broad scope of Article 21 of the Constitution. In the first Order, an assurance by the prosecution was recorded, that they shall conclude the trial by taking appropriate steps within next 6-8 months, and thereafter, liberty was granted to Sisodia to move a fresh application for bail in case of change in circumstances or in case the trial was protracted and proceeded at a snail’s pace in next three months.

Explained| Supreme Court’s verdict on Jurisdiction of Special Court presided by Sessions Judge or Add. Sessions Judge to try complaint under IBC

In IBBI v. Satyanarayan Bankatlal Malu, (2024) 6 SCC 508, the division bench of BR Gavai* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. has held that the reference to ‘Special Court established under Chapter XXVIII of the Companies Act, 2013’ in Section 236(1) of the Code is a ‘legislation by incorporation’ and not a case of ‘legislation by reference’, thus the Special Court presided by a Sessions Judge, or an Additional Sessions Judge will have jurisdiction to try the complaint under the Code. Further, the Bench remitted the matter to the High Court to consider the petition of the respondents afresh on merits.

Article 370 Verdict | Supreme Court upholds abrogation of Special Status for Jammu and Kashmir

The five-Judge Constitution Bench comprising of Chief Justice of India Dr. DY Chandrachud, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, B.R. Gavai, and Surya Kant, JJ., delivered its verdict pertaining to the petitions filed against abrogation of Article 370 by the Central Government. The Bench unanimously upheld the Union’s action of abrogating Article 370. It further directed the restoration of statehood. Dr. DY Chandrachud, CJI particularly directed the Election Commission of India to conduct elections to the J&K assembly by 30-9-2024.

Whether an arbitration clause from a primary contract gets incorporated into a subsequent Letter of Intent? Supreme Court answers

In NBCC (India) Ltd. v. Zillion Infraprojects (P) Ltd., (2024) 7 SCC 174, the division bench of BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., said that when there is a reference in the second contract to the terms and conditions of the first contract, the arbitration clause would not ipso facto be applicable to the second contract unless there is a specific mention/reference thereto. Further, it said that the present case is not a case of ‘incorporation’ but a case of ‘reference.’ As such, a general reference would not include the arbitration clause. Clause 7.0 of the LOI., also part of the agreement, makes it clear that the redress of the dispute between the NBCC and Zillion Infra must be only through civil courts having jurisdiction of Delhi alone.

Supreme Court strikes down Electoral Bonds Scheme for being violative of right to information under Art. 19(1)(a) of Constitution

In Assn. for Democratic Reforms (Electoral Bond Scheme) v. Union of India, (2024) 5 SCC 1, the 5-Judge Constitution Bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud, CJ., Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, JJ. arrived at a unanimous verdict, giving two opinions, one authored by Dr. Justice DY Chandrachud for Justice Gavai, Justice Pardiwala and Justice Misra, and other by Justice Sanjiv Khanna arrived at same conclusion, with slight variance in the reasoning, and held that anonymous electoral bonds are violative of the right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Thus, the electoral bonds scheme has been struck down for being unconstitutional.

7-Judge Bench Verdict | Supreme Court Judgment on validity of Unstamped Arbitration Agreement

In Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under A&C Act, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899, In re, (2024) 6 SCC 1, a 7 Judge bench comprising of Dr. DY Chandrachud, C.J.I, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, Surya Kant, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, JJ. gave a unanimous judgment, holding that the unstamped agreement is inadmissible under the Stamp Act, but cannot be rendered void ab initio. Thus, arbitration clauses in unstamped or inadequately stamped agreements are enforceable. Justice Khanna has written a concurring judgment.

Supreme Court strikes down Khalsa University (Repeal) Act for violating Article 14

The Division Bench of B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ., in Khalsa University v. State of Punjab, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2697, held that the Khalsa University (Repeal) Act 2017, singled out the Khalsa University amongst 16 private Universities in the State and no reasonable classification has been pointed out to discriminate the Khalsa University against the other private Universities. Thus, while setting aside the same, the Court held that the Impugned Act would be discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Demonetisation Verdict: Breakdown of the majority and minority opinions

Six years after the country went through demonetisation, that was severely criticised for being poorly planned, unfair and unlawful, the Constitution Bench of S. Abdul Nazeer, B.R Gavai*, A.S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian, B.V. Nagarathna**, JJ., in Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1, upheld the Centre’s 2016 demonetisation scheme in a 4:1 majority and held that demonetisation was proportionate to the Union’s stated objectives and was implemented in a reasonable manner. While Gavai, J., wrote the majority opinion for himself and SA Nazeer, A.S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian JJ.; Nagarathna, J was the lone dissenter who held that though demonetisation was well-intentioned and well thought of, the manner in which it was carried out was improper and unlawful.

Ministers and the freedom to make ‘hurtful’ statements: Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench verdict

A Constitution Bench of S Abdul Nazeer, AS Bopanna, BR Gavai, V Ramasubramanian* & BV Nagarathna**, JJ, in Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 6, has delivered verdict on the issue relating to freedom of speech of public functionaries and whether the right to life and personal liberty of citizens impedes the same and has ruled against imposing further restrictions on freedom of speech of Ministers.

V Ramasubramanian, J delivered the verdict for himself and SA Nazeer, AS Bopanna, BR Gavai, JJ, however, BV Nagarathna, J, while agreeing with the reasoning and conclusions arrived at by the majority on certain questions referred, went on to lend a ‘different perspective’ on some issues by way of separate opinion.

In absence of complainant’s direct evidence of bribe, presumption of Public Servant’s guilt can be drawn based on other evidence; holds SC 5-Judge Bench

The 5-judge Bench of SA Nazeer, BR Gavai, AS Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian and BV Nagarathna*, JJ., in Neeraj Datta v. State, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1724, answered an important question pertaining to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and has held that in the absence of evidence of the complainant (direct/primary, oral/documentary evidence), it is permissible to draw an inference of culpability/guilt of a public servant under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act based on other evidence adduced by the prosecution. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant if the complainant turns ‘hostile’, or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence.

Explained| Justice LC Victoria Gowri appointment case vis-à-vis scope of judicial review in matters relating to appointment of High Court judges

In Anna Mathew v. Supreme Court of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 131, filed by three Madras High Court lawyers opposing the appointment of Advocate LC Victoria Gowri as a judge of the Madras High Court, wherein the issue was relating to the scope and ambit of judicial review in the matter of appointment of judges to the High Courts under Article 217 of the Constitution, the division bench of Sanjiv Khanna and B.R. Gavai, JJ. said that when eligibility is put in question, the question would fall within the scope of judicial review. However, the question of whether a person is fit to be appointed as a judge essentially involves the aspect of suitability and stands excluded from the purview of judicial review.

The Court opined that, this legal issue is settled and is not res integra.

Also Read: How in the fight between Justice LC Victoria Gowri’s ‘eligibility’ versus ‘suitability’ to become a judge, ‘eligibility’ won?

“No coercive steps against Journalists summoned by Crime Branch for article on Adani Group”; SC grants interim relief

In Ravi Nair v. State of Gujarat, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1419, filed by two journalists against the summons issued by the Ahmedabad Crime Branch seeking their appearance in person to question about their critical article titled “Documents Provide Fresh Insight Into Allegations of Stock Manipulation That Rocked India’s Powerful Adani Group” published on the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (‘OCCRP’) website, the Division Bench of B.R. Gavai* and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. allowed the appeal and directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners till the next hearing.

Modi Surname Defamation Case | Supreme Court stays Rahul Gandhi’s conviction

The Three Judge Bench comprising of B.R. Gavai, PS Narasimha and Sanjay Kumar, JJ., in Rahul Gandhi v. Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 929, while hearing an appeal against Gujarat High Court’s order wherein, Rahul Gandhi’s revision petition challenging the Session Court’s order thereby rejecting the prayer to stay his conviction was dismissed, said that considering that there are wide ramifications of the conviction order and Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and they not only affect the right of the appellant to continue in public life but also affect the right of the electorate, who elected him, to represent their constituency. and that no reason was given by the Trial Court for imposing the maximum sentence, therefore, the conviction order needs to be stayed.

[2002 Godhra Riots] Supreme Court grants Regular Bail to Civil Rights Activist Teesta Setalvad

The 3-judge bench of BR Gavai, AS Bopanna and Dipankar Datta, JJ., in Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 860, granted regular bail to Civil rights activist Teesta Atul Setalvad in respect of First Information Report (‘FIR’) for offences punishable under Sections 468, 469, 471, 194, 211, 218 and 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) for fabricating evidence in the 2002 Godhra riots.

Honour Killing | Supreme Court commutes death sentence of man who killed newly married sister and her paramour

“It is well-settled law that awarding of life sentence is a rule and death is an exception. The application of the rarest of rare case principle is dependent upon and differs from case to case.”

In Digambar v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 531, challenging the common judgment and order passed by High Court of Bombay, a Full Bench of BR Gavai*, Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, JJ. partly allowed the appeal of Digambar (accused 1) by maintaining his conviction under Section 302 of Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and commuting his death sentence to life imprisonment considering the view that the High Court as well as the Trial Court erred in holding the present case to fall under ‘rarest of rare’ cases to award capital punishment to the accused.

Dying Declaration cannot be the sole basis of conviction; Supreme Court reproduces 11 factors to determine its weightage

In Irfan v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1060, filed by the convict against the judgment and order passed by the Allahabad High Court, wherein the Court affirmed the conviction order and sentence of death passed by the Sessions judge for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 436 and 326-A of the Penal Code, 1860, the full bench of BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala* and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. while setting aside the conviction order, has held that dying declaration while carrying a presumption of being true must be wholly reliable and inspire confidence. Where there is any suspicion over the veracity of the same or the evidence on record shows that the dying declaration is not true it will only be considered as a piece of evidence but cannot be the basis for conviction alone.

Supreme Court explains what qualifies as ‘Change in Law’; directs DISCOMS to compensate Power Generators for all additional charges levied by State instrumentalities

In GMR Warora Energy Limited v Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 464, filed against the orders of Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (‘APTEL’), the division bench of BR Gavai* and Vikram Nath, JJ. while dismissing the appeals, said that the findings of APTEL are not perverse and arbitrary. Further, the Bench held that additional charges payable on account of orders, directions, notifications, regulations issued by State instrumentalities, after the cut-off date, qualify as ‘Change in Law’. The issues were whether various taxes/charges imposed by State Governments after the cut-off date specified in the PPAs, would fall under ‘Change in Law’ events? Further, whether the levy of Forest Tax and the MoEF Notification on coal quality be considered as ‘Change in Law’ events?

The Court construed the term “Law” and said that it means all laws including Electricity Laws in force in India and any statute, ordinance, regulation, Notification or code, rule, or any interpretation of any of them by an Indian Governmental Instrumentality and having force of law. Thus, it cannot be denied that Coal India Limited is an instrumentality of the Government of India and its orders, insofar as price of fuel are concerned, are binding on all its subsidiaries.

Can step- children claim property right in mother’s mehar after her death? Does a registered mehar deed become unenforceable for being nominal?

The Division Bench of L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai*, JJ., in Azgar Barid v. Mazambi, (2022) 5 SCC 334, upheld the impugned judgment of the High Court wherein the High Court had granted property rights to the step- children of the deceased in her mehar property by declaring the mehar deed as unenforceable for being nominal.

Right to establish an educational institution is a fundamental right

The Bench of BR Gavai* and PS Narasimha, JJ., in Pharmacy Council of India v. Rajeev College of Pharmacy, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1224, held that the right to establish an educational institution is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and reasonable restrictions on such a right can be imposed only by a law and not by an execution instruction.

IBC| Once CIRP is initiated and moratorium is ordered, proceedings under SARFAESI Act cannot continue

The bench of L. Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai*, JJ., in Indian Overseas Bank v. RCM Infrastructure Ltd., (2022) 8 SCC 516, held that the proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) cannot continue once the CIRP has been initiated and the moratorium has been ordered as per the Section 14(1)(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).

Consumer Protection| ‘Business to business’ dispute not a consumer dispute

The bench of L. Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai*, JJ., in Shrikant G. Mantri v. Punjab National Bank, (2022) 5 SCC 42, interpreted the true scope of a “consumer” in terms of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and has held that the ‘business to business’ disputes cannot be construed as consumer disputes. The entire Act revolves around “business-to-consumer” disputes and not for “business-to-business” disputes.

“Mighty” Union of India vs “Ordinary Soldier” |Members of Ecological Task Force also entitled to Disability Pension

In Pani Ram v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1277, where a soldier, after serving in the Regular Army for 25 years, was re-enrolled in the Infantry Battalion (Territorial Army), Ecological Task Force (ETF) and was denied disability pension in view of the letter of the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, which provides that the members of ETF would not be entitled for disability pension, the bench of L. Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai*, JJ., held that it was wrong to deny the claim as the ETF is established as an additional company for 130 Infantry Battalion of Territorial Army and the other officers or enrolled persons working in the Territorial Army are entitled to disability pension.

Nothing wrong with OBC Reservation for consecutive term for the office of Mayor

The bench of L. Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai*, JJ., in Sanjay Ramdas Patil v. Sanjay, (2021) 10 SCC 306, set aside the judgment of the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court wherein it was held that the reservation of the Office of Mayor for the Dhule Municipal Corporation for Backward Class (OBC) for a second term, coupled with the fact that there has been no reservation for the Scheduled Caste category, amounted to violation of rotation policy.

‘Delays in prosecuting the corrupt breeds a culture of impunity’; Sanction requests under PC Act must be decided within 4 months but proceedings cannot be quashed for delay

The bench of BR Gavai and PS Narasimha*, JJ., in Vijay Rajmohan v. State, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1377, decided two important questions relating to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and held that:

1. There is no illegality in the action of the appointing authority, the DoPT, if it calls for, refers, and considers the opinion of the Central Vigilance Commission before it takes its final decision on the request for sanction for prosecuting a public servant.

2. The period of three months, extended by one more month for legal consultation, is mandatory. The consequence of non-compliance with this mandatory requirement shall not be quashing of the criminal proceeding for that very reason. The competent authority shall be Accountable for the delay and be subject to judicial review and administrative action by the CVC under Section 8(1)(f) of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 (CVC Act).

Mere lack of State Government’s prior consent does not vitiate CBI investigation in absence of prejudice caused to accused

The bench of AM Khanwilkar and BR Gavai*, JJ., in Fertico Marketing and Investment Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2021) 2 SCC 525, held that not obtaining prior consent of the State Government under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (DPSE Act) would not vitiate the investigation unless the illegality in the investigation can be shown to have brought about miscarriage of justice or caused prejudice to the accused.

Article 370| Review all orders imposing curbs in a week and put them in public domain

A 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, R Subhash Reddy and BR Gavai, JJ., in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637, asked the J&K administration to review all orders imposing curbs on telecom and internet services in the state in a week and put them in public domain.

“The existing Suspension Rules neither provide for a periodic review nor a time limitation for an order issued under the Suspension Rules. Till this gap is filled, the Review Committee constituted under Rule 2(5) of the Suspension Rules must conduct a periodic review within seven working days of the previous review, in terms of the requirements under Rule 2(6).”

Prashant Bhushan sentenced to a fine of Rupee 1 for his contemptuous tweets

The 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari, JJ., in Prashant Bhushan, In re (Contempt Matter), (2021) 3 SCC 160, sentenced advocate Prashant Bhushan with a fine or Re.1/ (Rupee one)­ to be deposited with the Registry by 15.09.2020, failing which he shall undergo a simple imprisonment for a period of three months and further be debarred from practising in this Court for a period of three years. It had found advocate Prashant guilty of criminal contempt on 14.08.2020 in the suo motu contempt petition initiated against him after he criticised the Supreme Court and the sitting and former CJIs in a couple of tweets.

“If we do not take cognizance of such conduct it will give a wrong message to the lawyers and litigants throughout the country. However, by showing magnanimity, instead of imposing any severe punishment, we are sentencing the contemnor with a nominal fine of Re.1/­ (Rupee one).”

Conviction on basis of circumstantial evidence- Onus on accused

In Sudru v. State of Chattisgarh, (2019) 8 SCC 333, wherein a son murdered his father, the bench of Deepak Gupta and B.R. Gavai*, JJ., confirmed the conviction of the accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence, last seen evidence and non-explanation of incriminating evidence by accused, conviction of accused confirmed.

State can’t be estopped from withdrawing the exemption from payment of Excise Duty if such withdrawal is in larger public interest

The 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, MR Shah and BR Gavai*, JJ., in Union of India v. Unicorn Industries, (2019) 10 SCC 575, held that by invoking the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the Union of India cannot be estopped from withdrawing the exemption from payment of Excise Duty in respect of certain products, which exemption is granted by an earlier notification; when the Union of India finds that such a withdrawal is necessary in the public interest.

Company Court cannot decide in winding up proceeding which party defaulted with the compromise

In the corporate dispute in Shital Fibers Ltd. v. Indian Acrylics Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 281, the 3-Judge Bench comprising of R.F. Nariman, B.R. Gavai* and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ., held that, “The Company Court while exercising its powers under sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act would not be in a position to decide, as to who was at fault in not complying with the terms and conditions of the deed of settlement and the compromise deed.”

COVID-19| SC suggests Centre to extend directions to protect children in Protection Homes from spread of coronavirus to Nari Niketans

The 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, SK Kaul and BR Gavai, JJ., Rishad Murtaza v. Union of India, (2020) 15 SCC 288, has asked the Central Government to extend the order passed in In Re Contagion of COVID-19 Virus in Children Protection Homes, to Nari Niketans also, if feasible.

Tata’s Housing project in Chandigarh stalled for being ‘too close’ to Sukhna Lake & Widlife Sanctuary

In the matter concerning the housing project, on the ground that the area in question falls within the catchment area of Sukhna Lake and is 123 meters away from the boundary of Sukhna Wildlife Sanctuary, the 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, MR Shah and BR Gavai, JJ., in Tata Housing Development Co. Ltd. v. Aalok Jagga, (2020) 15 SCC 784, held that such projects cannot be permitted to come up within such a short distance from the wildlife sanctuary. Stating that the entire exercise smacks of arbitrariness on the part of Government including functionaries, the bench said that the Court has to perform its duty in such a scenario when the authorities have failed to protect the wildlife sanctuary eco-sensitive zone­. It said,

“The entire exercise of obtaining clearance relating to the project is quashed. We regret that such a scenario has emerged in the matter and that it involved a large number of MLAs of Punjab Legislative Assembly.”

Scope of the Court to enquire in decision of an Executive: Whether Court is concerned with decision-making process or ultimate decision?

While elaborating the scope of judicial review, Bench of L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ., in Punjab State Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Emta Coal Ltd., (2022) 2 SCC 1, held that,

“It is not for the Court to determine whether a particular policy or a particular decision taken in the fulfilment of that policy is fair.”

Question relating to interpretation of Section 11 of the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015 which was an outcome of the judgment of this Court’s decision in Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary, (2014) 9 SCC 516, and ancillary question pertaining to the scope of judicial review of administrative action of the State authority arose for consideration in the instant appeals.

Can ’emotionally dead’ marriage be dissolved in exercise of Art. 142 of Constitution?

The Division Bench of L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, JJ., in Subhransu Sarkar v. Indrani Sarkar (Nee Das), 2021 SCC OnLine SC 720, dissolved a marriage while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India as the marriage was emotionally dead.

Extension of tenure of the incumbent Director of Enforcement beyond two years

A Division Bench of L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, JJ., in Common Cause v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 687 , upheld the Central Government’s order extending the tenure of the incumbent Director of Enforcement Sanjay Kumar Mishra for a period of one year. The Supreme Court held that there is no fetter on the power of the Central Government in appointing the Director of Enforcement beyond a period of two years. Interpreting Section 25 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 which prescribes the minimum tenure of the Director of Enforcement, the Court observed:

“The words ‘not less than two years’ cannot be read to mean ‘not more than two years’ and there is no fetter on the power of the Central Government in appointing the Director of Enforcement beyond a period of two years.”

Directions issued to make voter’s right to information more effective

A Division Bench comprising of R.F. Nariman and B.R. Gavai, JJ., in Brajesh Singh v. Sunil Arora, (2021) 10 SCC 241, found several political parties guilty of contempt of court for non-compliance of directions given by the Supreme Court in Rambabu Singh Thakur v. Sunil Arora, (2020) 3 SCC 733, in connection with disclosure of information of candidates with criminal antecedents. Penalties have been imposed on the political parties found guilty. The Court also issued further directions in order to make the right of information of a voter more effective and meaningful.

Emergency arbitrator’s award is referable to S. 17(1) of Indian Arbitration Act; enforceable under S. 17(2)

Holding that an award passed by Emergency Arbitrator is enforceable under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a Division Bench of R.F. Nariman* and B.R. Gavai, JJ., Amazon.Com NV Investment Holdings LLC v. Future Retail Ltd., (2022) 1 SCC 209 ruled in favour of Amazon in the infamous Future-Amazon dispute. It was held that the interim award in favour of Amazon, passed by the Emergency Arbitrator appointed under the Arbitration Rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre is enforceable under the Indian Arbitration Act. The Court declared that full party autonomy is given by the Arbitration Act to have a dispute decided in accordance with institutional rules which can include Emergency Arbitrators delivering interim orders.

Part IX-B of Constitution relating to cooperative societies unconstitutional for want of ratification by half of the States; Provisions relating to multi-State cooperative societies severable and valid

A 3-Judge Bench of the Court in Union of India v. Rajendra N. Shah, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 474, held that the Constitution (97th Amendment) Act, 2011 which inter alia inserted Part IX-B is ultra vires the Constitution insofar it is concerned with the subject of Cooperative Societies for want of the requisite ratification under Article 368(2) proviso. At the same time, the Court by a majority of 2:1, followed doctrine of severability in declaring that Part IX-B is operative insofar as it concerns Multi-State Cooperative Societies both within various States and in Union Territories. R.F. Nariman and B.R. Gavai, JJ., formed the majority, whereas K.M. Joseph, J. penned a separate opinion dissenting partly with the majority. He expressed inability to concur with the view on the application of doctrine of severability.

Whether a residential accommodation for nuns/students would fall under “religious or educational purposes” and be qualified for tax exemption?

The Division Bench comprising of R. F. Nariman* and B.R. Gavai, JJ., in State of Kerala v. Mother Superior Adoration Convent, (2021) 5 SCC 602, addressed the instant case regarding statutory interpretation. The issue before the Bench was whether a residential accommodation for nuns and hostel for students would fall under “religious or educational purposes” for the purpose of tax exemption. The Bench expressed, “We must first ask ourselves what is the object sought to be achieved by the provision and construe the statute in accord with such object? And on the assumption that any ambiguity arises in such construction, such ambiguity must be in favour of that which is exempted.”

Where one party habitually resides in a foreign country, arbitration becomes an international commercial arbitration even when the business is being carried through an office in India

The Division Bench of R.F. Nariman* and B.R. Gavai, JJ., in Amway India Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Ravindranath Rao Sindhia, (2021) 8 SCC 465 , addressed an important case regarding nature of arbitration under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Bench ruled, “If at least one of the parties was either a foreign national, or habitually resident in any country other than India; or by a body corporate which was incorporated in any country other than India; or by the Government of a foreign country, the arbitration would become an international commercial arbitration notwithstanding the fact that the individual, body corporate, or government of a foreign country carry on business in India through a business office in India.”

“Can’t treat all of them as a liar”: SC while partially setting aside the 2018 SC/ST Act verdict

The 3-judge Bench of Arun Mishra*, MR Shah and BR Gavai, JJ., in Union of India v. State of Maharashtra, (2020) 4 SCC 761, partially set aside the 2-judge verdict in Dr Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 6 SCC 454. It was held that some portions of the said verdict were against the concept of protective discrimination in favour of downtrodden classes under Article 15(4) of the Constitution and also impermissible within the parameters laid down by this Court for exercise of powers under Article 142 of Constitution of India.

*Did you Know? Currently, the total number of pending cases in the Supreme Court of India stands at 90397 cases¹⁸.

Bidding Adieu: the legacy of CJI B.R. Gavai

CJI B.R. Gavai’s tenure at the Supreme Court is replete with defining judgments which have influenced the discourse within the nation. Throughout his tenure in the Supreme Court, CJI Gavai had underscored the importance of the Constitution and its guiding principles of equality, liberty and fraternity.

During his 6-month tenure as the Chief Justice of India, Justice Gavai decided significant cases emphasising on meritorious judicial appointments in District level and Higher judiciary. These judgments of his stressed on the necessity of well-oiled and independent judiciary for the betterment of the country. Furthermore, CJI Gavai’s decisions on several environmentally sensitive cases, highlighted his commitment towards harmonising ecological protection and human development. A staunch believer in the Constitutional values, CJI Gavai noted that his journey, from studying in a municipal school to reaching the country’s highest judicial office, was made possible by the Constitution of India and the values of justice, liberty, equality and fraternity that guided him throughout¹⁹.

As CJI Gavai bids farewell to the hallowed halls of the Supreme Court, he leaves behind a legacy of following the letter and spirit of the Constitution. The legal fraternity is undoubtedly keen to know what’s next for him. Till then, we wish him a happy retirement and all the best for his future endeavours.