'Reservation is needed for those still backward': Outgoing CJI Gavai defends collegium, rejects pressure claims

Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai on Sunday says he is cooling down after six-and-a-half years on the bench, and intends to take “8–10 days off, doing nothing,” before returning to Delhi not as a power-centre former CJI, but as a private citizen committed to social work. 

CJI B.R. Gavai retires on Sunday. Justice Suryakant will take oath as 53rd Chief Justice of India on Monday (November 24).

Rejecting all speculation about post-retirement assignments, Gavai says he will “not accept any official position”, and will instead devote time to NGOs already working in Maharashtra. 

In a candid farewell interaction, the country’s second Dalit CJI reflected on judicial independence, pendency, appointments, the presidential reference verdict, reservation, social media pressures and even the shoe-throwing incident he famously brushed off in court.

Judicial independence, pendency and AI

In his view, the judiciary’s most urgent task remains reducing pendency. He believes artificial intelligence can be deployed meaningfully to tackle docket congestion. “Pendency is a huge problem and employing AI, we can do it better,” he says, adding that digital transformation must be a priority across courts.

What, in his assessment, changed during his tenure?

“Independence of the judiciary,” he says without hesitation. Yes, the collegium system is criticised, but for him the very complaints against it prove its value: “It helps in the independence of the judiciary. But, a balanced approach needs to be there.”

On whether the government pushed back on judicial outcomes, his answer is categorical: “No pressure from the executive. You have seen my judgments; they are not always palatable for the government.”

On appointments, transfers and dissent

On appointments, Gavai argues the government is always taken on board, “We always take the government on board.” He points to the 107 judicial appointments cleared during his term. At the same time, he defends transfers as administrative necessities: “Two or three instances are there. We transfer for better administration of justice. There is huge concentration in some high courts.”

He rejects criticism that the collegium promotes dynasties. “This perception is wrong. Hardly 10 per cent. Appointment is solely based on merit.”

On the issue of why Justice B.V. Nagarathna's dissent regarding the elevation of one of the judges was not taken note of, he contextualises: “If dissent had relevance, the other four judges wouldn’t have agreed. For a name to go through, it should be 4:1.”

Women judges, social media and shoe-throwing

Gavai concedes that consensus on appointing more women judges was elusive. “There were collegium issues, we couldn’t reach consensus,” he says. He, however, insists representation is improving in the judiciary’s own ranks, pointing to his own courtroom staff: “Four court masters, two are women.”

The rising toxicity of online discourse is a concern. “Social media has become a problem everywhere. Things you never say in court are put in your mouth.” He recalls the shoe-throwing incident with unusual calm: “It was a decision taken at the spot. I just ignored it.”

Reservation, caste and Ambedkarite grounding

As India’s second Dalit chief justice, Gavai repeatedly returns to his father’s Ambedkarite influence. “His upbringing shaped my outlook. Fundamental rights and directive principles must be given equal weight.”

On the reservation and the creamy layer debate for SC/ST communities, he is clear: “This has to be done by the executive. It’s a societal issue. Reservation is needed for those still backward.” He cites his tenure’s interventions on caste discrimination and its entrenched social realities.

The Presidential reference

Gavai stresses that the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on the powers of governors over pending state bills. “Our Constitution rests on separation of powers. Parliament makes laws.” The Court, he says, only clarified limits. “We cannot overrule the judgment. We reiterated the law. There cannot be a straight-jacket formula. Facts matter.”

Justice Yadav, death penalty, pollution

On the controversy involving Justice Shekhar Yadav, he declines to say more: “We tried to take some action. Let the new CJI take it up.”

On the death penalty, he says trends are shifting: instead of confirming capital punishment, courts are “balancing the nitty-gritty” and increasingly thinking in terms of fixed timelines.

Pollution, he admits, is a systemic failure: “The approach must change. We cannot wake up only when levels spike. Enforcement cannot depend on the Supreme Court alone.”

A tenure of intensity and contentment

Reflecting on his high-voltage 2021 remark, threatening to jail a fellow passenger on a flight after a woman was harassed for asking him to wear a mask, Gavai smiles: “Enough is enough” was spontaneous, he says. Ultimately, his takeaway is one of peace: “Jo ho nahi sakta, uske baare mein kya sochna? I am satisfied and content that what I thought, I could do.”

As he steps away, with no office to occupy and no title to seek, B.R. Gavai seems intent on carrying the values he championed inside the courtroom into public service outside it.