52nd CJI BR Gavai: Reputed for Notable Decisions on Personal Liberty

Earlier today, the president  administered the oath of office to Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai as the Chief Justice of India (‘CJI’).

Justice Gavai is the 52nd CJI and only the second judge from a Dalit community to have reached the coveted office of the CJI.

Speaking at the First Dr Ambedkar Memorial Lecture organised by the Dr Ambedkar International Centre, Justice Gavai said, “I am here only because of Dr. Ambedkar and the Constitution of India.”

Justice K.G. Balakrishnan was the first CJI from a Dalit community who was appointed on January 1, 2007, and retired on May 12, 2010. Unlike Chief Justice Balakrishnan, Chief Justice Gavai will have a brief tenure of only six months, like his immediate predecessor Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna.

Justice Gavai was born on November 24, 1960. He joined the bar on March 16, 1985. Initially, he worked in the chambers of Raja S. Bhonsale, a former advocate general of Maharashtra and judge of the Bombay High Court, till 1987.

Justice Gavai practiced independently at the Bombay High Court from 1987 to 1990. After 1990, he practiced mainly before the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court.

He also worked as Assistant Government Pleader and Additional Public Prosecutor in the Nagpur Bench of the High Court, from August 1992 to July 1993. He was appointed as Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor for the Nagpur Bench in January 2000.

On May 8, 2019, the Supreme Court Collegium comprising the then CJI Ranjan Gogoi and Justices S.A. Bobde, N.V. Ramana, Arun Mishra and Rohinton Fali Nariman decided to elevate Justice Gavai to the Supreme Court.

Justice Gavai was elevated to the Bombay High Court on November 14, 2003. He became the permanent judge there on November 12, 2005.

On May 8, 2019, the Supreme Court Collegium comprising the then CJI Ranjan Gogoi and Justices S.A. Bobde, N.V. Ramana, Arun Mishra and Rohinton Fali Nariman decided to elevate Justice Gavai to the Supreme Court. Back then, he stood at serial number 8 in the combined seniority of High Court judges on an all-India basis. Among the seniority of Bombay High Court judges, he was at serial number 4.

Justice Gavai superseded his three senior judges, including Justice Abhay S. Oka, who would only come to the Supreme Court in 2021 and is now junior to Justice Gavai in the Supreme Court.

In its recommendation, the collegium justified the appointment of Justice Gavai stating that on his appointment, the Supreme Court Bench would have a judge belonging to a Scheduled Caste community after about a decade.

“The Collegium while recommending his name has duly considered Mr. Justice Gavai’s position (Sl.No.4) in the seniority of Judges hailing from Bombay High Court. His recommendation, in no way, is to be misconstrued to mean that three senior-most Judges from Bombay High Court (two of whom are serving as Chief Justices) are less suitable than Mr. Justice Gavai. On his appointment, the Supreme Court Bench will have a Judge belonging to the Scheduled Caste category after about a decade”, the collegium resolution read.

The government approved the recommendation of the Collegium and he was appointed to the Supreme Court on May 24, 2019.

Justice Gavai is considered a ‘no-nonsense’ judge who often leans in favour of personal liberty. He disapproves of the practices of some High Court hearing bail matters for days altogether.

Notable decisions on personal liberty

While granting bail to former deputy chief minister of Delhi Manish Sisodia, Justice Gavai observed that trial courts and the High Courts attempt to play safe in matters of grant of bail. The principle that bail is a rule and refusal is an exception is, at times, followed in breach.

“On account of non-grant of bail even in straight forward open and shut cases, this Court is flooded with a huge number of bail petitions thereby adding to the huge”, Justice Gavai said.

On facts of Sisodia’s case, Justice Gavai held that on account of a long period of incarceration running for around seventeen months and the trial having not even commenced, Sisodia had been deprived of his right to speedy trial.

In Wazid vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024), Justice Gavai disapproved of the practice of keeping a bail application pending for years together. He reiterated that even a single day delay in deciding the bail application adversely affects the fundamental rights of the citizens, and hence, such a practice cannot be appreciated.

On July 1, 2023, a three-judge Bench headed by Justice Gavai, which had assembled late at night, granted interim protection to journalist and civil rights activist Teesta Setalvad in the case of alleged fabrication of evidence to implicate innocent persons in connection with the 2002 Gujarat pogrom. She was directed by the Gujarat High Court to surrender forthwith. The High Court had declined to give her time to surrender, even though she was on interim protection from the Supreme Court till the High Court finally decided her petition.

In May 2024, Justice Gavai was part of a Division Bench with Justice Sandeep Mehta which declared that the arrest of NewsClick founder Prabir Purkayastha under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act by the Delhi police was “invalid in the eyes of law” and ordered for his release from custody.  

In August 2023, Justice Gavai was at the helm of a three-judge Bench which stayed the conviction of Rahul Gandhi in a criminal defamation case for a ‘Modi’ surname remark allegedly made during a political rally in 2019. The Bench noted that the Gujarat trial court judge had failed to give any reason for serving Gandhi with the maximum sentence of two years’ imprisonment.

In yet another case, Justice Gavai displayed his approach towards personal liberty in 2021, when the Central Bureau of Investigation challenged the Calcutta High Court’s order placing four All India Trinamool Congress leaders Madan Mitra, Firhad Hakim, Subrata Mukherjee and Sovan Chatterjee, accused in the Narada sting case, under house arrest, with liberty to continue official work as an interim measure. Justice Gavai said special benches are constituted to protect liberty, but he had never previously seen a special bench sit to curtail liberty.

In February 2022, Justice Gavai had also authored a judgment directing the Madhya Pradesh High Court to reinstate a woman judicial officer who was forced to resign in 2014 due to sexual and work-related harassment by a judge of the High Court, saying her resignation “could not be construed to be voluntary”.

Justice Gavai also authored a judgment upholding amendments to the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 and the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 that deal with the appointment of the heads of ED and CBI. The amendment provided that the period of office of the director of CBI and ED could be extended by up to one year at a time, with no further extension after the completion of a five-year term. The Bench found that the legislature was competent to introduce these laws and that they did not violate any fundamental right.

Justice Gavai was also part of a three-judge Bench in the Anuradha Bhasin (2020) case, directing publication of all orders in force and any future orders under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code and for suspension of telecom services, including internet, to enable the affected persons to challenge it before the High Court or the appropriate forum. The Bench also held that freedom of speech and expression and the freedom to practice any profession or carry on any trade, business or occupation over the medium of the internet, enjoys constitutional protection under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g).

In August 2023, Justice Gavai was at the helm of a three-judge Bench which stayed the conviction of Rahul Gandhi in a criminal defamation case for a ‘Modi’ surname remark allegedly made during a political rally in 2019.

Decisions in Constitution Benches

Justice Gavai has also been part of many Constitution Benches laying down far-reaching rulings.

He authored the majority judgment for a five-judge Constitution Bench upholding Union Government’s decision of 2016 of bringing demonetisation scheme, which invalidated ₹500 and ₹1,000 currency notes.

Justice Gavai was also part of the majority decision in the five-judge Constitution Bench which upheld the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution. He was also part of a Constitution Bench which quashed the 2018 Electoral Bonds Scheme as unconstitutional. The Bench had unanimously held that anonymous electoral bonds violated the right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

In August 2024, sitting on a seven-judge Constitution Bench, Justice Gavai authored his concurring opinion State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2024) allowing sub-classification within Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs).

In a recent interview to Bar and Bench, Justice Gavai recounted that he was at the receiving end of public criticism after he upheld the power of States to sub-classify reserved category groups (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) into different groups based on their inter se backwardness, for extending reservation benefits.

"My judgment on sub-classification also brought a lot of criticism. I also come from a Scheduled Caste, but why should my children take up the share of someone more deserving from a village?”, he asked.

Landmark ruling on bulldozer demolitions

Last year in a significant ruling, Justice Gavai ruled that government officers overseeing the illegal demolition of houses and properties belonging to accused or convicted persons will be personally responsible for restitution and damages. He observed that it is not a happy sight to see women, children and the aged forced into the streets overnight.  He issued detailed guidelines to be followed before demolition of the property.

The Collegium will have to fill five vacancies under CJI Gavai’s tenure

Currently, there are 32 sitting judges in the Supreme Court, two short of the full strength of the Court. While under the tenure of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, three appointments were made to the Supreme Court, one position had remained unfilled.

On May 13, 2025, Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna retired after a six month tenure as the Chief Justice of India.

On June 9, 2025, Justice Bela M. Trivedi is set to retire from the Supreme Court. Her last working day will be May 16.

On May 25, 2025, Justice A.S. Oka will retire after a tenure of 3 years and 9 months at the Supreme Court.

On August 9, 2025, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia will retire from the Supreme Court after a tenure of 3 years and 3 months.

Along with the two existing vacancies, the impending retirements of Justices Trivedi, Oka and Dhulia will mean that the Collegium under CJI Gavai will have to appoint five judges to the Supreme Court.

Last year in a significant ruling, Justice Gavai ruled that government officers overseeing the illegal demolition of houses and properties belonging to accused or convicted persons will be personally responsible for restitution and damages.

The Waqf matter: An immediate challenge

On the judicial side, the immediate case for CJI Gavai is the challenge to the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, assigned to him by his predecessor. This case is highly contentious, as a Member of Parliament from the ruling party made offensive and baseless accusations against CJI Khanna solely because he proposed staying certain provisions of the Waqf Act. In his concluding remarks from the ceremonial bench, Justice Khanna expressed confidence that his brother, Justice Gavai, would uphold the values of the Constitution. We can only hope that Justice Khanna’s words prove true.

With inputs from Paras Nath Singh, advocate on record and member of the editorial board

Courtesy: The Leaflet