By K Raveendran
Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai has taken over the reins of the Supreme Court with a kind of moral clarity and institutional courage that is rarely seen, especially in what is to be a short tenure. In his limited time at the helm, he has managed not only to make his presence felt but to shape a discourse that could potentially alter the perception and functioning of the judiciary for the better.
His stewardship has come as a breath of fresh air in an institution often weighed down by internal silences, deference to executive power, and a creeping erosion of public trust. In this brief period, Justice Gavai has chosen to confront issues that have long been brushed under the carpet—particularly the rot that sets in when judges, post-retirement, are seen to negotiate their way into positions of power that are dependent on the political executive. He has made it clear that the legitimacy of the judiciary lies in its self-scrutiny and the constitutional principles it upholds, not in the insulation it often cloaks itself in to avoid uncomfortable truths.
What is striking about Justice Gavai’s early pronouncements is their unflinching adherence to constitutional supremacy. In an era where political expediency often dictates institutional behaviour, he has reaffirmed that the Constitution is not merely a document of convenience but a guiding force that must shape every aspect of governance. This is more than just a ceremonial nod to democratic values—it is an active assertion of the judiciary’s responsibility to act as the constitutional conscience of the republic. His emphasis on this foundational document is particularly crucial at a time when institutions are being tested for their resilience, independence, and moral fibre.
But more significantly, perhaps for the first time in recent memory, a Chief Justice has openly acknowledged that the erosion of public trust in the judiciary cannot be blamed solely on external forces. Instead, Justice Gavai has squarely placed the onus of this trust on the judges themselves. This introspective lens marks a significant shift from the often defensive and opaque stance that the judiciary adopts when questions of credibility arise. In doing so, Justice Gavai has not only raised the bar of institutional accountability but has also implicitly asked his colleagues to introspect on their own roles and responsibilities. He has tapped into a sentiment that has long existed in civil society—that the judiciary’s moral authority must be earned daily, through conduct that is beyond reproach, and through decisions that are reasoned, fair, and free from the shadow of political patronage.
Justice Gavai’s critique of post-retirement positions for judges is especially noteworthy. This issue, while often discussed in academic and public circles, has rarely found resonance in the statements of sitting Chief Justices. The unspoken understanding, perhaps even among the judges themselves, has been that silence is the price for future rewards. Whether it is heading a tribunal, being appointed as a governor, or landing roles in commissions or advisory boards, the temptation of post-retirement sinecures looms large. Justice Gavai has broken this silence, and in doing so, has held up a mirror to the judiciary. The implications of such post-retirement appointments are not merely symbolic. They strike at the heart of judicial independence. When judges know that a promising assignment awaits them at the pleasure of the executive, it casts a shadow on their decisions, especially in cases where the government is a party. Even if the decisions are objectively fair, the perception of bias can be enough to undermine public confidence.
In openly discussing this, Justice Gavai has done what many of his predecessors refrained from doing—calling out the corrosive effects of such institutional compromises. He has reminded the judiciary that independence is not merely a structural feature secured by the Constitution but a value that must be consciously upheld in every judgement delivered, every order passed, and every ethical line drawn. His critique is not an indictment of individual judges per se, but a call to restore the dignity and detachment that the office of a judge demands. It is a call to disentangle the judiciary from the executive, not just in form, but in spirit.
What also distinguishes Justice Gavai’s approach is the sincerity with which he has acknowledged the existing gaps in the judicial system. Instead of glossing over institutional flaws with lofty rhetoric, he has confronted them with unusual honesty. This includes recognising that the judiciary’s aloofness, its procedural delays, and its often inexplicable silences have contributed to a growing sense of alienation among the public. It is not just about pending cases or judicial vacancies. It is also about the perceived opacity of judicial decision-making and the tendency to shy away from politically sensitive matters. By emphasising that judges must earn public trust not just by legal erudition but by moral clarity, Justice Gavai has reframed the idea of what it means to be a judge in a constitutional democracy.
His words have gained even more significance in the current political climate, where institutions often appear to be in retreat. When Parliament is polarised, when media narratives are deeply fragmented, and when bureaucracies are increasingly seen as tools of the ruling regime, the judiciary becomes the last bastion of constitutional morality. In such a context, the Chief Justice’s role becomes not merely that of an administrator or legal interpreter, but of a moral sentinel. Justice Gavai seems to understand this better than most. His interventions signal not just a return to first principles but a refusal to be co-opted by a system that rewards silence and punishes integrity.
It is worth noting that Justice Gavai comes from a background that itself reflects India’s diversity and democratic ethos. As one of the few Chief Justices from the Dalit community, his rise is a symbolic affirmation of the inclusiveness that the Constitution aspires to ensure. But more than identity, it is his resolve and ethical clarity that set him apart. He has not allowed the brevity of his tenure to make him cautious or deferential. Instead, he has used his limited time to articulate an unflinching vision of what the judiciary ought to be. In doing so, he has revived a conversation that goes beyond law and into the realms of institutional ethics, public perception, and democratic legitimacy.
Justice Gavai’s tenure may be brief, but its impact could resonate well beyond his time. If his colleagues take his words seriously, it could lead to a cultural shift within the judiciary—one that values independence over influence, accountability over access, and constitutional fidelity over convenience. (IPA Service)
