Chief Justice of India Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai’s last working day on Friday was marked by emotion and reminiscence, but his tenure — just over six months long — leaves behind a more mixed and complicated legacy. While he spoke of “satisfaction and contentment” after four decades in the law, his period as CJI was shaped as much by cautious judicial choices and institutional dilemmas as by the celebratory tone of his farewell.
Gavai repeatedly described himself as a “student of justice”, emphasising the influence of Ambedkarite constitutional values on his work. One of only two Dalits and the first Buddhist to head the judiciary, he highlighted equality, liberty, justice and fraternity as his guiding principles.
But his tenure was not immune to controversy. His earlier judgment extending the “creamy layer” principle to certain Scheduled Caste contexts triggered strong reactions, including from within his own community — an episode he referenced again on Friday, insisting the ruling had been misunderstood for “political reasons.”
Gavai’s last major judicial act — the court’s opinion on a Presidential Reference — exemplified the tension in his approach. The judgment restated that the court’s advisory jurisdiction cannot reopen settled law, stressing institutional boundaries. But critics noted that the bench sidestepped the substantive constitutional uncertainty that had motivated the reference in the first place.
The result was an opinion that protected the court from stepping into political controversy but left unresolved doctrinal gaps that future benches will likely confront. For scholars, the ruling reflected Gavai’s cautious instincts: a desire to stabilise without fully engaging, resulting in clarity on process but not on principle.
An incident in October added another layer to assessments of his leadership. When a disgruntled Sangh-affiliated lawyer hurled a shoe in his direction in the courtroom — an unprecedented breach of decorum — Gavai instructed the staff to “ignore” the act and declined to initiatecontempt or criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court initially followed his lead, though contempt proceedings against the lawyer were later initiated in the face of a public outcry.
The decision drew divided responses. Some viewed it as magnanimity, preventing the spectacle from spiralling further. Others saw it as a failure to defend institutional dignity, especially at a moment when courts face increasing public hostility. The episode became emblematic of Gavai’s restrained style — principled for some, overly cautious for others.
CJI-designate Surya Kant praised Gavai as a colleague of integrity, patience and good humour, recalling his “firmness laced with humour”. But beyond collegial warmth, Gavai’s tenure did not produce sweeping reform or decisive movement on several major pending constitutional questions. His impact was incremental rather than transformative.
Looking back at his journey from Amravati to the highest judicial office, Gavai framed public office as service, not power, quoting the principle that judges “may iron out the creases but must not alter the fabric”. In many ways, that line captures his time as CJI: careful, restrained and institution-minded — but at times passive in moments requiring sharper judicial engagement.
As he exited the courtroom for the final time, he left behind a legacy that is respectable but not pathbreaking, steady but not decisive — one shaped as much by what he chose not to do as by what he did.
With PTI inputs
