Justice BR Gavai, now serving as the Chief Justice of India, was a member of the Supreme Court bench that delivered a landmark ruling last year allowing the subclassification of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. This judgment permitted the creation of separate quotas for the most marginalised groups within these communities, ensuring that the benefits of reservation reach those who continue to remain disadvantaged despite decades of affirmative action. The decision marked a significant shift from a 2005 judgment that had barred state governments from creating such subcategories, thereby opening new avenues for addressing deep-rooted inequalities.
Reflecting on the aftermath of this ruling, Chief Justice Gavai shared that he faced considerable criticism, particularly from within his own community, regarding his stance on the creamy layer principle among Scheduled Castes. Speaking at an event organised by the Goa High Court Bar Association, he emphasised that the role of a judge is not to cater to public opinion but to remain true to the principles of law and guided by one’s conscience. He clarified that judgments must arise from a deep understanding of justice, not from a desire to appease specific groups or communities.
Explaining the reasoning behind his support for subclassification, Gavai pointed out that he had observed a recurring pattern in which families who had already benefited from reservations across generations continued to secure privileged positions in society. This, he argued, created an imbalance where the most underprivileged members of the community were left behind. He illustrated his perspective with an example, asking whether the child of a chief secretary, who had access to elite schooling and urban opportunities, could truly be compared to the child of a daily wage labourer studying in a government-run village school. For him, constitutional equality meant giving unequal groups different treatment until they achieved a more level playing field.
Chief Justice Gavai also highlighted other significant judgments that reinforced constitutional values and protected citizens from arbitrary state actions. He referred to the recent Supreme Court verdict that prohibited the use of bulldozers for demolishing houses without due legal process. According to him, the ruling upheld the doctrine of separation of powers by ensuring that the executive branch could not assume the role of the judiciary. He explained that such judicial interventions are necessary to prevent abuse of power and to safeguard the rights of individuals, especially the vulnerable.
On the subject of judicial accountability, Gavai candidly admitted that judges, being human, are not beyond mistakes. He recalled instances where he had declared some of his own previous rulings per incuriam, acknowledging the fallibility of judicial decision-making. For him, constructive criticism is an essential part of ensuring the growth and credibility of the judiciary. He also stressed that High Courts, with their independence and authority, stand on equal footing with the Supreme Court when it comes to safeguarding justice.
In addition to these reflections, the Chief Justice drew attention to his ruling on the Vidarbha Zudpi forests case, which brought relief to thousands of families living under the constant threat of eviction. His judgment protected slum dwellers from being displaced and ensured that their basic right to shelter remained intact. For him, this decision represented an important step towards achieving social and economic justice, as it addressed the fears of the poor while reinforcing the constitutional promise of dignity and security for all.
Through these remarks, Chief Justice Gavai highlighted the delicate balance judges must maintain between law, conscience, and the broader pursuit of justice. His words underscored the judiciary’s role not just in interpreting statutes, but also in ensuring that the principles of fairness and equality are meaningfully upheld in the lives of ordinary citizens.
