Six months is too short a tenure to analyse the work of any individual or any institution, and particularly if it is about a top Constitutional post held by an individual in the world’s largest democracy.
So, how will the tenure of outgoing Chief Justice of India (CJI), BR Gavai —only the second Dalit in the country’s history to have occupied this high office — be judged in history?
He was the head of Indian judiciary for barely six months, but then he was not the first to have had such a brief tenure nor will he be the last.
Two CJIs, Two Paths
In fact, there were many similarities between Justice Gavai and his immediate predecessor as CJI, Justice Sanjiv Khanna. Both were elevated directly to the Supreme Court from their positions as High Court judges (Justice Khanna from Delhi High Court and Justice Gavai from Bombay High Court). Both of them did not have the experience of being Chief Justices of any High Court. Both also went on to occupy the highest chair of the Indian judiciary – the position of Chief Justice of India, for merely six months. The similarities, however end here.
Justice Khanna was a man of few words and surprisingly bowed out in glory. In contrast, Justice Gavai was known to speak his mind from the Bench and was known to give headlines from the Bench. His six and a half year tenure in Supreme Court, actually presents a split picture. There is a stark difference between his six years as a judge and next six months as CJI.
Justice Gavai had been sworn in as a Supreme Court judge in May 2019, and though he superseded many seniors to be elevated as a judge of the top most court of the country, the Collegium recommendation had provided some clarity to justify his elevation, which was that the Supreme Court required a social composition balance, which meant that being a Dalit was one of the main reason behind Justice Gavai’s elevation.
It was after his two year stint in the Supreme Court that Justice Gavai’s name first came into limelight in 2021, when he questioned the Modi government’s decision of giving repeated extensions of service to then ED director, SK Mishra.
Though, civil liberties groups and other NGOs were disappointed by the final verdict in the matter by Justice Gavai-headed bench, which upheld Mishra’s extension, the public glare in the matter due to Justice Gavai’s observations turned the spotlight on him.
Key Verdicts That Shaped His Voice
Justice Gavai was part of the Benches which gave important verdicts during his time as a Supreme Court judge, largely in favour of the Modi government, such as upholding demonetisation, to Article 370 abrogation, and allowing sub-classification in SC/ST reservation. But he gradually created his own legacy through important verdicts by Benches headed by him.
It was a Justice Gavai-headed bench in 2023 that granted a stay on two year sentence in a defamation case against Congress leader and now leader of the opposition in Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi. The stay helped in Gandhi continuing as a Lok Sabha MP, which was under threat due to a lower court order in Gujarat, and which was upheld by the Gujarat High Court.
As Justice Gavai’s seniority increased in the Supreme Court, so did his authority in his verdicts. Two important verdicts in 2024 by benches headed by him — declaring Bulldozer justice in different parts of the country as illegal, and coming down heavily on the ED for arresting political rivals of the BJP — were noticed across the country.
In fact, in a rare development, in a function to felicitate him on his retirement, Justice Gavai in his speech has described his verdict against bulldozer justice as the important verdict delivered by him. His harsh stand on ED’s repeated overreach had made the Modi government uncomfortable to the extent that government law officers stated in open courts that such remarks by lordships could demoralise the agency.
However, as an old saying goes, 'Change is the law of nature.' After taking over as CJI in May this year, a change was noticeable in his approach.
Environment, Corporate Calls & Legacy
His six-month brief tenure was eventful, and though he stood firm on many issues, including his public assertion on his belief in secularism despite a shameful attempt to browbeat him through at attempt of hurling a shoe at him in open court, some of his decisions on the judicial as well as administrative side appear to have left a question-mark on his tenure as CJI.
It is said that the Supreme Court is not infallible but it is final. This appeared to have changed during Justice Gavai’s six-month tenure. Repeated re-opening of cases by Justice Gavai as the CJI, which had been earlier decided by the Supreme Court, had raised serious eyebrows.
Some of the changes were too stark to go unnoticed. First among these was Justice Gavai headed bench’s decision to allow green crackers in Delhi-NCR during Diwali, something which the Supreme Court itself had banned since 2017.
Though the CJI-headed bench gave some directions to keep a strict check on normal crackers and monitor the AQI, nothing of this sort was implemented. It is an open secret that the Delhi NCR AQI levels, which took a turn for the worse since the night of 20 October, has not improved even after a month, and the CJI-headed bench has avoided any meaningful hearing on Delhi pollution since Diwali.
A normally communicative Justice Gavai has avoided any reference to his decision to allow bursting of crackers this Diwali, a practice which had been discontinued since at least eight years.
In his last days, Justice Gavai gave another disappointing judgment by reversing an earlier Supreme Court judgement, which had struck down retrospective environmental clearances. Three days before Justice Gavai’s retirement, the Bench recalled its 16 May judgement, which had declared that grant of retrospective environmental clearances by the Centre to building projects and constructions as grossly illegal.
Justice Gavai’s approach to environmental issues had raised eyebrows last year as well, when he had objected to Justice Abhay Oka’s Bench issuing a contempt of court notice on the illegal felling of 1,600 trees in Delhi’s ridge area, in which Delhi Lieutenant Governor’s role was also allegedly under a cloud.
The dispute between two benches eventually led to the matter being referred to a third bench, which led all the guilty off-the-hook by ruling that a fine be imposed on all the violaters.
Signing Off, With Questions Left Behind
As the CJI, Justice Gavai showed extraordinary promptness in constituting a three-judge bench to review the two-judge bench verdict on shifting of stray dogs to shelters from public places. Another judgment that has caused a lot of debate in the legal and corporate circles is his bench’s decision in dispute involving Bhushan Power and Jindal Group.
The ruling, delivered on 26 September 2025 by a three-judge Bench led by CJI BR Gavai, reviewed and overturned a May 2025 Supreme Court judgment by a Bench headed by Justice Bela Trivedi, which had ordered the liquidation of Bhushan Power and Steel Limited (BPSL) despite the successful implementation of JSW Steel’s resolution plan.
The only second Dalit CJI in India’s history has signed-off by saying he will not accept any post-retirement position, a welcome public statement in today’s time. He also showed no haste in moving to the designated CJI official residence in his tenure. Yet whether he enhanced the stature of the office remains something perhaps only history can judge.
(The author is a former BBC and Hindustan Times journalist, who has covered judiciary related matters for a long time. This is an opinion piece, and the views expressed are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.)