Chief Justice of India B R Gavai openly acknowledged substantial criticism from his own community regarding his pivotal ruling on Scheduled Caste reservation sub-classification during a felicitation ceremony hosted by the Goa High Court Bar Association in Panaji on Saturday. The nation’s top judge defended his judicial approach, emphasizing that his decisions are guided by constitutional law and personal conscience rather than public opinion or community pressure. Speaking candidly about the backlash, Justice Gavai explained that his judicial philosophy centers on interpreting the law as he understands it, regardless of external demands or community expectations.
The criticism stems from a historic 6-1 majority ruling delivered by a seven-judge Constitution Bench in August 2024, which determined that Scheduled Castes do not represent a socially uniform group and can therefore be subdivided by individual states to provide targeted reservation benefits to the most disadvantaged members within these communities. The Chief Justice specifically addressed controversy surrounding his stance on implementing a ‘creamy layer’ exclusion for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes categories. He highlighted the inequity that arises when multiple generations from the same family continuously benefit from reserved positions, citing examples of families where successive members become IAS officers through the same quota system.
Justice Gavai questioned whether the child of someone educated in premier institutions in metropolitan cities like Mumbai or Delhi could be considered equivalent to the offspring of a mason or agricultural worker from rural areas who attends local government schools. Drawing upon Article 14 of the Constitution, the Chief Justice clarified that true equality does not mean treating all individuals identically. Instead, he emphasized that constitutional equality requires providing differential treatment to unequal circumstances to achieve genuine parity. Justice Gavai illustrated this principle by contrasting a laborer’s child from a village with the child of a chief secretary residing in Mumbai with access to elite educational facilities, arguing that placing them in the same category undermines fundamental equality concepts.
He noted that three other Supreme Court judges supported his constitutional interpretation. The Chief Justice also discussed the Supreme Court’s recent guidelines regarding property demolitions, expressing concern about executive overreach in bypassing judicial processes. He criticized instances where authorities demolished homes of individuals who had not even faced trial, emphasizing that such actions violate due process requirements and harm innocent family members who share the residence. Justice Gavai stressed that even convicted individuals retain rights under the rule of law, making arbitrary demolitions constitutionally impermissible. Highlighting the importance of separation of powers, the Chief Justice warned against allowing executive authorities to assume judicial functions.
He explained that the Constitution deliberately establishes distinct roles for executive, judicial, and legislative branches, and permitting the executive to act as judge would fundamentally undermine this constitutional framework. The Supreme Court’s demolition guidelines were designed specifically to prevent such institutional boundary violations. Reflecting on his judicial tenure spanning over two decades, Justice Gavai expressed satisfaction with his contributions to advancing India’s constitutional commitment to social and economic justice. He emphasized that his judicial decisions, though sometimes controversial within his own community, represent his dedication to upholding constitutional principles and promoting genuine equality rather than superficial uniformity in India’s diverse society.