Justice B.R. Gavai, the 52nd Chief Justice of India, retired on November 23, 2025. Given his short tenure of just six months as Chief Justice, no fireworks were expected, nor did they happen. But that is not to say that he has not left his footprints – whether his legacy is good or bad is a matter of history and should be left to posterity.

In his tenure of six years in the Supreme Court, Justice Gavai authored various judgments, and was also part of some constitution bench decisions, such as the affirmation of Article 370, striking down of the electoral bond scheme and the validation of the Union government’s demonetisation policy. Though all those judgements are now done and dusted, some, because of their lasting social and legal implications, deserve to be noted. 

One of the judgements that was eagerly awaited was regarding a reference made by the President of India to the Supreme Court in the wake of a two-judge bench judgement which had ruled that the governor of a state cannot indefinitely withhold assent to Bills passed by the state legislature, and consequently imposed a deadline of three months for consideration of the Bills, failing which the same was to be taken as ‘deemed consent’. Answering the Presidential Reference, a five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Gavai has, for all intents and purposes, reversed the judgement given by the two-judge bench holding “that in a democratic country like ours fixing timelines for Governors is against the elasticity provided by the Constitution”. It has also deprecated the grant of deemed assent to the Bills withheld by the state governor, holding that it virtually amounts to taking over functions of a constitutional authority. The aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court will, of course, be discussed and debated in times to come, but on the face of it, it gives carte blanche to the governors. It effectively means that the governors who are appointees of the Centre can sit over Bills which are not to the liking of the Centre. The judgement, thus, is a step against cooperative federalism as envisaged in the Constitution and not a step towards cooperative federalism. In fact instead of serving the constitution, the judgement provides handle to the executive to subvert it.

In another judgement, Justice Gavai in a three-judge bench, speaking for the majority, overturned an earlier judgement by Justice Abhay S. Oka which barred post-facto environmental clearances, putting some ongoing or completed projects at the risk of demolition. Reversing that, the Supreme Court has now held that retrospective clearance may be granted for permissible activities. The judgement is seen by many as a blow to the cause of environment, and comes as a shot in the in the arm for violators who can now with money and muscle power get their way through. The court has also deviated from its long standing approach of refusing to entertain a review petition barring in rare and exceptional cases of miscarriage of justice, or where there is an error apparent on the face of the record. Instead, the court chose to delve into the merits of the earlier reasoning and gave a different finding. 

One judgement delivered by Justice Gavai that is highly acclaimed relates to so-called "bulldozer justice", whereby houses and shops of some people, especially of the minority community, were being razed to the ground without authority of law on a mere suspicion of the owners being involved in some criminal case. Decrying such practice, the court held “that chilling sight of a bulldozer demolishing a building when authorities have failed to follow the basic principles of natural justice reminds one of a lawless state where might was right”. These were strong words, and having so expressed its anguish, the court laid down several guidelines which the state and its instrumentalities were mandated to follow. But the judgement has its downside too. It provided no succour to the victims. They had approached the court asking for compensation to rebuild their structures so demolished, but neither were they granted compensation, nor were the wrongdoers punished. 

Also read: Justice, Speech and Selective Outrage: The Supreme Court’s Contempt Dilemma

On the administrative side, the collegium headed by Justice Gavai recommended elevation of a judge to the Supreme Court from a particular state even when he ranked 57th in all-India seniority, and even when a senior member of the collegium reportedly dissented, pointing out that the appointment was counter productive to judicial administration, caused regional imbalance and harmed the collegium’s credibility. Justice Gavai on his retirement is reported to have said that he was not alone in taking the decision and it was taken by majority members of the collegium. That of course is true but it does not answer the objection raised by the dissenting Judge.

More recently, Justice Atul Sreedharan of Madhya Pradesh high court who took suo-motu cognisance against a BJP minister allegedly calling Colonel Sofiya Qureshi a “sister of the terrorists” and directed the registration of an FIR against him, was first transferred to Chhattisgarh high court and then, merely at the asking of the government, was transferred to Allahabad high court. In both the cases the collegium was seen gravitating towards the government, which is engaged in a constant effort to clip its power of appointment and transfer of judges to the higher judiciary.

Towards the end of Justice Gavai’s tenure, an unseemly and highly unfortunate incident took place, when a 71-year-old advocate hurled a shoe at him which fortunately missed the target. While the advocate showed no remorse for his alleged act, the Chief Justice reportedly said that he was not disturbed by such acts and described it as a forgotten chapter.

If the Chief Justice was unruffled by such acts then why were suo-motu contempt proceedings initiated by him against journalist and YouTuber Ajay Shukla for allegedly having made some scandalous allegations against a senior Supreme Court judge? Why was a Member of Parliament who made a scathing attack on the then Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna allegedly holding him responsible for inciting all the civil wars happening in the country, allowed to go free without any action? Why these different yardsticks? In both the cases, if true, more than the personal honour of the concerned judge it was the honour, dignity and majesty of the court which was at stake. 

History spares none. It speaks, and when it speaks, it lays bare the truth. It will judge the judges too.

Rekha Sharma is a former judge of the Delhi high court.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.