Never faced any pressure from executive: CJI BR Gavai

Outgoing Chief Justice of India BR Gavai said on Sunday that he did not face any pressure from the executive. Speaking to the media at his residence on his retirement day, the CJI said a case is decided on the basis of the issue before the judge and not on the parties involved (government or private individuals).

“But there is a thought in some quarters that you cannot be an independent judge unless you decide against the government on every issue. This is not the right approach,” CJI Gavai said.

Talking about justice BV Nagarathna’s dissent in the collegium on the proposal to elevate justice Vipul Pancholi to SC, the CJI said the dissent within the collegium is not unprecedented. He said that if Justice Nagarathna’s dissent was justified, the other four judges of the collegium would also agree on the same.
On the issue of not publishing the reasons for elevating lawyers and judges to high courts, CJI Gavai said the bench unanimously decided not to publish any reasons. He felt that revealing the reasons could harm the candidate’s prospects. He added that the decision was taken to protect the careers of young candidates and therefore the panel decided that no details would be made public.

CJI Gavai also expressed regret that no woman judge could be recommended to the Supreme Court during his tenure, stating that the bench was unable to reach consensus on the candidates considered.

Reiterating that he will not accept any appointment from the government after retirement, the CJI said he wants to devote his time to the welfare of tribal communities in his native district. Refusing to comment on the controversy surrounding Justice Yashwant Verma, he stated that the matter is currently before a Lok Sabha inquiry committee. On the opinion of the five-member Constitution bench headed by him on the presidential reference, CJI Gavai said that the court cannot add words to the Constitution and hence cannot fix timelines for the President or governors. But he called the opinion balanced and noted that it confirms that governors cannot withhold bills indefinitely and that states can seek remedies in cases of obvious delays.

Referring to the incident of an advocate trying to throw a shoe at him, he said the decision to forgive was taken on the spur of the moment. Significantly, he said, legislation would be needed to combat the danger of hate speech.