The Importance of Being Restrained

Remember Hardik Patel, the crusader for reservations for Patidars, one-time independent, later Congressman, now with the BJP? Some time in 2015, he filed petitions in the Gujarat high court for quashing an FIR against him arising out of agitations organised by him. The petitions came up before a single judge of the Gujarat high court, Justice J.B. Pardiwala who had, at that time, been a judge for four years.

While partly allowing the petition in respect of certain offences, but not in respect of sedition and waging war against the government, he made strong observations against reservation – saying that they came in the way of progress of the country, and that people needed to rise against corruption at all levels, rather than shed blood and indulge in violence for reservation. 

Soon after this, 58 members of the Rajya Sabha moved a petition before the chairman, vice president Hamid Ansari, seeking Justice Pardiwala’s impeachment on the ground that his observations went against the constitution. Members of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes also cut across party lines to assail his “anti-reservation” remarks. Close on the heels of the impeachment move, Justice Pardiwala, on an application made by the Gujarat government, deleted the remarks from his judgment, saying they were not “relevant or necessary” for deciding the petition. The political class showed grace by not pursuing the move. 

Justice Pardiwala was elevated to the Supreme Court in May 2022, at a comparatively young age of 56 years, giving him one of the longest tenures in the court in recent history. He has been party to some noteworthy decisions, the most recent of them being the case relating to Governor R.N. Ravi’s intransigence. 

In his judgment of April 8, 2025, a two-judge bench headed by him reined in the governor, prescribing timelines for governors to provide assent on bills and holding that under Article 142, the Supreme Court would deem that assent has been granted to pending bills. One controversial part of that decision, however, was the holding that when a bill is reserved for consideration of the President on grounds of patent unconstitutionality, the President as a measure of prudence, should seek the advisory opinion of the Supreme Court. This part was wholly unnecessary. 

On August 4, a case came before the bench of Justice Pardiwala and Justice Mahadevan in which Justice Prashant Kumar of the Allahabad high court had refused to quash a criminal case. This would have been a routine matter, except that Justice Kumar had allowed the criminal proceedings to continue, because if a civil suit was filed, “it will take years for it to see any ray of hope” – a reasoning inconsistent with the rule and letter of the law. 

The Supreme Court did not take kindly to this reasoning, and ordered that not only should the matter re-heard by a different judge of the Allahabad high court but also that Justice Kumar must be made to sit with a “seasoned senior judge” of the high court and that he should be barred from hearing any criminal case for the rest of his tenure. 

The order of Justice Kumar made headlines, but the order of the Supreme Court caused great consternation in legal circles. It was reported on August 7 that “top judges of the Supreme Court have taken strong exception” to Justice Pardiwala’s order “castigating” Justice Kumar, and that the Chief Justice of India was discussing how to remedy the issue. One day later, it was reported that 13 judges of the Allahabad high court wrote to the Chief Justice of that court, urging him not to implement Justice Pardiwala’s administrative orders, since the Chief Justice alone possesses the power of assignment of cases as the “master of the roster”.

The Chief Justice of India, B.R. Gavai, showed remarkable judicial statesmanship by taking up the matter with Justice Pardiwala and addressing a letter to the bench, to reconsider the observations. 

On August 8, the Supreme Court saw unusual proceedings. The bench of Justice Pardiwala and Justice Mahadevan assembled in the morning with Justice Pardiwala mentioning the fact that the matter was listed again in view of the letter of the Chief Justice. The bench passed an order recalling the directions, but weakly trying to explain why those observations were made and asserting that no disrespect was meant! 

Ten years have passed between 2015 and now, but that impulsive streak remains. Justice Pardiwala, going by the rule of seniority, will become Chief Justice of India on May 3, 2028, and will hold office for two years and three months. He is otherwise a ramrod-straight judge and nobody’s person. 

He does not fraternise with lawyers, and maintains a very desirable aloofness. One can only hope that he will draw the right lessons from the Prashant Kumar case, and fulfil the many expectations which his integrity has generated. 

Raju Ramachandran is a senior advocate, Supreme Court of India. 

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