-By A LeN Special Correspondent
(Lanka-e-News -21.May.2025, 11.00 PM) There’s something both poetic and pointed about the elevation of Justice B.R. Gavai to the post of Chief Justice of India in 2025. He arrives not just swathed in judicial robes, but in the moral shawl of Buddha’s compassion, Ambedkar’s constitutionalism, and—dare one say—the increasingly shredded fabric of Indian secular democracy.
He’s the 52nd Chief Justice, yes. But he’s the first Buddhist, and only the second Dalit to ever scale the zenith of Indian jurisprudence. A moment of quiet celebration, perhaps. But amid the clanging machinery of state power and Hindutva’s relentless advance into every arm of the republic, one is left wondering: can a monk in black robes hold back a saffron tide?
Justice Gavai comes with all the hallmarks of the dignified, careerist judge—competent, restrained, immune to Twitter tantrums. Born into an Ambedkarite family, his father R.S. Gavai stood shoulder to shoulder with Dr. B.R. Ambedkar during the historic mass conversion to Buddhism in 1956. It’s no small legacy, and the new CJI has not shied away from acknowledging it.
Appointed to the Supreme Court in 2019, Gavai’s rise was predictable, though not meteoric. He had already served in the Bombay High Court, first as Additional Judge in 2003 and then as Permanent Judge from 2005. At every turn, his judgments bore the soft but steely watermark of constitutionalist precision.
But now, with a mere six months before his mandatory retirement, he must balance legacy and longevity. Can one change the course of a legal behemoth in half a year? More pressingly, can he protect the very communities he hails from—Dalits, Buddhists, Muslims, and Christians—from an increasingly majoritarian state?
Gavai takes the baton from CJI Sanjiv Khanna, whose reign was marked more by opacity than reform. Critics called it a “press-shy” tenure. Others whispered about his eagerness to avoid rocking the BJP’s saffron-sailed boat.
Gavai, by contrast, seems refreshingly willing to act—and speak. His spontaneous call for a two-minute silence at the Supreme Court to mourn the victims of the Pahalgam massacre, while symbolic, was perhaps the first sign that this Chief is not content with aloof institutionalism. "SC can’t be aloof when the country is in danger," he reportedly said. Imagine that—judges with emotion!
But symbols, like robes, only go so far. In the trenches of Indian law, the real test is whether the judge in question upholds the Constitution—or just hugs it close while the nation unravels.
Justice Gavai is not what the press would call an “activist judge.” He doesn't spout slogans in courtrooms, nor does he bare his jurisprudence on social media. His flavour is quietism—sprinkled occasionally with uncomfortable truths.
Consider his comment during a PIL on Delhi’s homeless: “Freebies have created a class of parasites.” Cue outrage, letters from the CPI(M), and social media mobbing. But to be fair, it was the kind of clumsy honesty rarely heard from the Bench.
Still, judicial restraint can also become judicial abdication. When he refused to consider invoking Emergency powers in West Bengal, citing concerns of judicial overreach, critics wondered whether he was wary of becoming too visible in BJP-controlled waters. His career thus far has been a tightrope between upholding the law and not ruffling the feathers of those who, let’s face it, have the keys to the peacock throne.
There’s something deeply ironic—and perhaps painful—in seeing the first Buddhist Chief Justice of India preside over a Court that has, over the years, turned a rather blind eye to the plight of minorities. From the Ayodhya verdict that gave Hindutva a home to the neutering of Article 370 in Kashmir, the Supreme Court has often seemed more willing to accommodate than adjudicate.
But perhaps Gavai is different. His Bench’s decision in In Re: Demolition of Houses last year ruled against the rising trend of bulldozer “justice”—wherein homes of Muslims are flattened not through due process but sheer executive might. “This is not how a constitutional democracy operates,” he said. One could almost hear Ambedkar applauding from the other side.
And then there’s the landmark Rahul Gandhi verdict—where the two-year sentence by a trial court (for calling Modi a “surname shared by thieves”) was reversed under his watch. In effect, Gandhi got his MP status back. A rare victory for the Opposition? Or a token gesture to maintain judicial neutrality?
But perhaps the greatest test of Gavai’s term will lie in the world’s most secretive cabal: the Collegium system. With three retirements pending and vacancies to fill, Gavai heads a selection committee that could either transform the judiciary—or simply reproduce its biases with better diction.
When asked about the dismal SC/ST representation on the Bench, Gavai’s answer was underwhelming: “People concerned should be alive to the issue.” That’s civil service speak for: “Don’t ask me to fix systemic injustice in six months.”
On women’s representation, he was a touch more forthright—saying the Collegium “must take a call.” But with only one woman High Court Chief Justice in the entire country, and less than 15% of sitting High Court judges being women, the real question is whether Gavai’s call will be a clarion one—or a courteous whisper.
While not a firebrand, Gavai’s pen has carved out some significant precedents:
On Article 370: He joined the majority in upholding the Centre’s revocation of Jammu & Kashmir’s special status—a move critics say was political theatre disguised as federal reform.
On Electoral Bonds: He joined the majority in striking down the scheme, thus prising open the BJP’s Pandora’s box of anonymous donations.
On Sub-categorisation within SCs: He controversially mooted the extension of the ‘creamy layer’ concept to SCs and STs—a legally interesting but politically radioactive suggestion.
On Teesta Setalvad: He called the Gujarat HC’s rejection of bail “perverse,” reminding the world that Gujarat isn’t immune to scrutiny, no matter how saffron its credentials.
On Manish Sisodia: Bail granted in a politically sensitive case shows Gavai is not cowed by the Modi-Shah duo’s dislike for Delhi’s former Deputy CM.
All of this builds a picture—not of a radical judge, but of a quiet, Constitution-hugging reformist with a spine.
In the age of judicial endorsements and saffron allegiances, the question looming over CJI Gavai is less about what he will do, and more about what he will be allowed to do.
Will he protect India’s minorities—from the legislative overreach of the BJP? From bulldozers? From WhatsApp mobs masquerading as moral police? From laws that seem to sprout overnight banning everything from beef to burqas?
Will he challenge the extra-legal theatrics of “One Nation, One Election”? Will he ask why sedition continues to lurk in the Penal Code like an ancient cobra? Will he stand up when they try to define ‘love jihad’ in legalese?
In short: will he be the monk who stood up?
Ultimately, Gavai’s challenge isn’t about activism—it’s about audacity. Can he hold the line? Can he re-inject some constitutional cholesterol into a system suffering from institutional obesity and muscular majoritarianism?
Six months isn’t long, but history isn’t made in decades—it’s made in decisions.
His elevation itself was a moment of hope: a Dalit, Buddhist, Ambedkarite, ascending to the judicial summit. But if he walks off into retirement without altering a single systemic flaw—without demanding transparency in Collegium recommendations, without questioning the surveillance state, without bolstering access to justice for the voiceless—then what remains?
Another name etched into court plaques. Another picture on a wall.
As the first Buddhist Chief Justice, Gavai has already symbolised a break from the past. Now he must decide whether to be its guardian or its gentle funeral conductor.
Buddha said, “Three things cannot be hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth.”
Let’s hope the fourth isn’t the Chief Justice’s conscience.
-By A LeN Special Correspondent
---------------------------
by (2025-05-21 18:46:23)
Read 10944 Times
Leave a Reply
0 discussion on this news