Former Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, who completed his tenure on November 23, has made significant statements about judicial independence and transparency during his recent interview with ANI. The retired judge strongly denied experiencing any pressure from political or executive authorities throughout his service.
No Political Influence on Judiciary
When questioned about potential political influence on judicial decisions, Justice Gavai responded unequivocally: "No, genuinely no" to experiencing any pressure. He reinforced the constitutional separation of powers, asserting that the Indian judiciary functions with complete independence from other branches of government.
The former CJI specifically addressed criticisms against the Collegium system, describing allegations about its lack of transparency as "not well-founded." His defense comes amid ongoing debates about judicial appointments in India, with the Collegium system facing scrutiny from various quarters.
Judicial Activism vs Judicial Terrorism
Justice Gavai provided crucial insights into the boundaries of judicial intervention, warning against overreach while acknowledging the judiciary's responsibility toward vulnerable citizens. "There are limits within which judicial activism should act. As I always say, judicial activism should not turn into judicial terrorism," he emphasized.
He clarified that courts must intervene when socio-economic barriers prevent citizens from accessing justice, but stressed that such interventions must remain within constitutional boundaries. This balanced approach reflects his judicial philosophy during his six-month and ten-day tenure, which included summer, Dussehra, and Diwali vacations.
Stand Against Bulldozer Justice
The former Chief Justice discussed the Supreme Court's significant ruling against what he termed "bulldozer justice" - the practice where state authorities demolish properties of individuals accused of crimes. He revealed that the Court acted after observing properties being razed without proper notice or legal sanction.
"When merely because a citizen was involved in a criminal act, his house was demolished… it was like taking the law into one's own hands," Justice Gavai stated. He questioned the constitutional validity of collective punishment, asking "What is the crime committed by his family? Why bulldoze their roof?"
He explained that the Court established strict accountability measures, including allowing citizens to directly approach High Courts in demolition cases. The ruling potentially requires governments to rebuild illegally demolished structures and recover costs from responsible officials.
Regarding judicial tenures, Justice Gavai dismissed the idea of fixed terms for Supreme Court judges or Chief Justices, noting that shorter tenures don't necessarily impact judicial performance. Reflecting on his own brief tenure, he expressed satisfaction with his accomplishments despite the limited duration.
