New Delhi, Dec 17 (PTI) Former Chief Justice of India B R Gavai on Wednesday said that a degree of restraint was necessary for judges while pronouncing verdicts, as something he had once said during the
proceedings, in a lighter vein, was blown out of proportion.
The former CJI was responding to questions during a panel discussion in the ‘Lokmat National Conclave 2025.’ “While deciding the matters, it is I feel necessary that the judges must exercise restraint. A degree of restraint is very necessary because what I had said once in a court in a lighter mail, out of context, was blown out of proportion, and it was given a totally different colour,” he said.
Ex-CJI Gavai said judges should never be bothered about whether they are opposed or supported while passing verdicts.
“The judges are supposed to decide the matters on the basis of the facts before them, on the basis of the law, and on the basis of the Constitution. It did not matter to me much whether I was opposed or liked,” he said.
Gavai said that social media became a “menace” when judges said a few words, which were blown out of proportion and given a totally different context.
“So the best thing is to abide by the advice given by one of our learned colleagues, to speak less. And in any case, the judges are supposed to speak through their judgments,” he said.
Answering a question about the significance of directive principles of the Constitution, the ex-CJI said that last year marked 75 years of the Kesavananda Bharati case, which laid down the “basic structure doctrine.” “I have been saying at many places that though the initial journey of the Supreme Court may not be conducive with the importance of the directive principles of the Constitution, in the Kesavananda Bharati case, you might notice that though the Supreme Court was equally divided on the amending cause of the Constitution, but in so far as the importance of Directive Principles is concerned, almost all the judges were on the same page,” ex-CJI Gavai said.
He said that the earlier view that whenever there is a conflict between the fundamental rights and directive principles, the directive principle should give way to the fundamental rights was later changed by the apex court, which held that the directive principles and the fundamental rights, together, are the soul and conscience of the Constitution.
Regarding the question of the supremacy of one organ of the state and whether the judiciary had weakened in the last decade, ex-CJI Gavai said, “Sometime back, there was a statement by the then constitutional functionary that the judiciary is not Supreme, but it is the parliament which is supreme.” “And on various forums, I had an occasion to speak, and I said that neither the parliament nor the judiciary is supreme. What is supreme is the Constitution of India, and all the three bodies, the legislature is the parliament and the executive and the judiciary, work under the areas which are earmarked for them by the Constitution.” He said at times there was some friction between the three bodies, and some overlapping of functions, but it was wrong to say that the judiciary had weakened in the last 10 years.
“In my judicial career of more than 22 years, and six and a half years at the Supreme Court, I went on to decide many matters, some in favour of the governments, some in favour of some citizens against the government and the narrative that unless a judge decides on the matters against the government, he is not an independent judge is not correct, because the judges decide the matters on the basis of the facts that are placed before them and apply the law and the constitutional provision as they apply to those facts,” the former CJI said. PTI MNR SKM NB
