By K Raveendran
Chief Justice B. R. Gavai’s sharp rebuke of the Union government for what he implies as attempt at “bench hunting” has reopened an old and uneasy debate about judicial independence and executive influence over India’s top court. The immediate trigger was the government’s demand to transfer a case, already in its final stage of hearing before a bench headed by the CJI, to a five-judge Constitution Bench. That move, by timing and design, appeared to the Chief Justice as a bid to avoid a verdict from his bench, reinforcing a pattern that has troubled the court for years — the attempt by powerful litigants to influence which judges hear what cases.
Bench hunting, a practice as subtle as it is corrosive, undermines the fundamental premise of justice: that the law must be ‘blind’ to power. In its most cynical form, it seeks to bypass benches perceived to be inconvenient or independent-minded, and to manoeuvre proceedings toward those deemed more favourable. Although this has long been whispered about in the corridors of the court, Justice Gavai’s observation brought the matter back into the open, this time with the weight of the Chief Justice’s office behind it. His words suggest frustration not merely with a procedural manoeuvre but with a recurring pattern that casts a shadow over the judiciary’s institutional credibility.
The context of this exchange is significant. The case in question concerns the constitutional validity of the Tribunal Reforms Act, a law criticised for giving the executive sweeping powers over appointments and service conditions in quasi-judicial bodies. The matter has been under detailed examination by the bench, and the timing of the government’s request, coming after petitioners had completed their arguments, raised eyebrows. To the CJI, it looked like an attempt to derail or delay an outcome that might not be to the government’s liking. His reaction, therefore, was not only a defence of judicial autonomy but also a reminder of the boundaries that must separate the Executive from the Judiciary.
This is not the first time such concerns have reached the public domain. The issue first captured national attention in January 2018 when four senior Supreme Court judges — Justices J. Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B. Lokur and Kurian Joseph — held an extraordinary press conference to protest what they described as arbitrary case allocation by then Chief Justice Dipak Misra. Their complaint was that matters involving the government were being selectively assigned to “preferred benches.” That moment was unprecedented; never before had sitting judges publicly questioned the integrity of their own institution’s internal functioning. It revealed deep fissures within the court and exposed a structural problem that has lingered since — the opaque manner in which the Chief Justice, as the “Master of the Roster,” assigns cases to benches.
The Chelameswar episode did not lead to structural reform, but it did leave a lasting cautionary mark. The concerns voiced then echo in today’s climate, with the difference that the accusation is now directed outward, at the government itself, for attempting to manipulate the judicial process through procedural demands. Chief Justice Gavai’s frustration reflects a growing perception that executive interference has become more sophisticated, relying less on overt pressure and more on procedural tactics designed to buy time, shift benches, or alter the judicial landscape mid-course.
Bench hunting, when engaged in by the Executive, is not merely an ethical lapse but a constitutional affront. The separation of powers, enshrined in India’s founding charter, depends on each branch of government respecting the jurisdictional boundaries of the other. For the Executive to attempt to influence the composition of a bench is to erode the judiciary’s independence from within. Every such move chips away at the perception of neutrality that sustains the court’s authority in public life. Even if no formal misconduct is proven, the mere appearance of manipulation can damage trust in the justice system.
The principle that judges must be insulated from political or institutional influence lies at the heart of democratic legitimacy. When litigants, especially those wielding state power, are seen to tailor procedural moves to suit their preferred outcomes, it breeds cynicism about whether the courts truly serve as a check on executive excess. Justice Gavai’s candid remark that the government appeared “keen to avoid his bench” was therefore not a casual observation but a public signal that such conduct will not go unnoticed. It suggested that even within the court, there is awareness of how patterns of behaviour by the state can amount to quiet encroachments on judicial space.
What makes this moment particularly sensitive is that it comes amid growing concerns about the balance between the judiciary and the government in contemporary India. Over the past decade, several high-stakes constitutional cases — from challenges to the electoral bonds scheme to matters involving federal appointments — have seen delays, adjournments, or last-minute procedural diversions. In many of these, critics have accused the government of tactical obstruction. The perception that the Executive is trying to manage or delay accountability through procedural tools, rather than arguing on the merits, adds to a narrative of institutional unease.
At stake here is more than the outcome of a single case. The credibility of the Supreme Court depends not only on its judgments but also on the integrity of its processes. The court is the ultimate adjudicator of constitutional boundaries, and its strength lies in public faith that it acts independently of those it is called upon to judge. Each episode that suggests otherwise — whether through alleged bench manipulation by the CJI in 2018 or accusations of executive bench hunting now — weakens that faith incrementally.
The Chief Justice’s outburst also reflects an internal dilemma: how to guard the institution from subtle incursions without appearing politically confrontational. The judiciary must tread carefully to protect its independence without descending into open conflict with the government. But silence, too, carries costs. When attempts to shift or expand benches go unchallenged, they can normalise a culture where powerful litigants assume they can shape judicial procedure to their advantage. By calling out the practice publicly, Justice Gavai has signalled a refusal to tolerate that normalization. (IPA Service)
The Mamdani Moment: A Political Earthquake In America’s Largest City 