Justice BR Gavai's five decisions that had a direct impact, from demonetisation to bulldozer justice

Justice BR Gavai has taken oath as the 52nd Chief Justice. Justice Gavai has been a part of many constitutional benches of the Supreme Court. Let us know about the five decisions which were given by the benches in which Justice Gavai was a part.

Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai has taken oath as the 52nd Chief Justice of the country. President Draupadi Murmu administered the oath to Justice Gavai in a brief ceremony held at Rashtrapati Bhavan on Wednesday. He took the oath in Hindi. Justice Gavai was promoted as a Supreme Court judge on May 24, 2019. Earlier, he was working as a judge in the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court. His tenure will be till November 23 this year. Justice Gavai has been a part of many constitutional benches of the Supreme Court. During this time, he became a part of many historic decisions. Let us know about some such decisions.

Justified the government's decision on demonetisation

The Narendra Modi government had decided to demonetise the currency on 8 November 2016. The government had decided to ban the five hundred and one thousand rupee notes. This decision of the government was challenged in the Supreme Court. More than 50 petitions were filed in the country's High Courts against the government's decision. The Supreme Court decided to hear these petitions together. On 16 December 2016, this matter was handed over to the Constitution Bench. This bench comprised Justice S Abdul Nazir, BR Gavai, AS Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian and Justice BV Nagarathna.

President Draupadi Murmu administers the oath of office to Justice BR Gavai as CJI at Rashtrapati Bhavan.

After the hearing, this bench, by a majority of four to one, justified the decision of demonetization. Justice BV Nagarathna gave the minority decision. He called the decision of demonetization illegal. Along with this, he also said that his decision will not have any effect on the old decision of the government. Justice Gavai said in his decision that the process of taking the decision on demonetization cannot be questioned, because the government and the Reserve Bank of India took the decision with mutual consent. He called the decision legally correct. He said that whether the objective of demonetization was achieved or not has nothing to do with the process of demonetization.

Decision on removal of Article 370 from Jammu and Kashmir

On August 5, 2019, the central government removed Article 370, which gave special status to Jammu and Kashmir. The government divided the full state of Jammu and Kashmir into two union territories named Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. 23 petitions were filed in the Supreme Court against this decision of the government. A constitutional bench of five judges of the Supreme Court heard these petitions together. This bench included the then CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice BR Gavai, Justice Suryakant, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Sanjeev Khanna.

This Constitution Bench in its unanimous decision on 11 December 2023 had declared the removal of Article 370 from Jammu and Kashmir as legal. This bench had given three decisions. The first decision was of 352 pages. It includes the opinion of Justice Chandrachud, Justice Suryakant and Justice Gavai. The second decision is of 121 pages. It contains the opinion of Justice Kaul. The third decision is of three pages. It includes the opinion of Justice Khanna. All five judges gave a unanimous decision on Article 370.

Justice BR Gavai has been part of the Supreme Court benches that have delivered some important judgements for the country.

Supreme Court verdict on electoral bonds

Justice Gavai was also part of the five-judge bench that struck down the electoral bond scheme used for political funding, terming it unconstitutional. In its judgment delivered on February 15, 2024, this bench had termed keeping the electoral bonds anonymous as a violation of the Right to Information and Article 19 (1) (a).

The bench that gave the verdict on electoral bonds included the then CJI Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Sanjeev Khanna, Justice BR Gavai, Justice JB Padarvila and Justice Manoj Mishra. This bench had ordered the State Bank of India, which issues the bonds, to provide complete information about the electoral bonds issued so far to the Election Commission. The court had ordered the Election Commission to make this information public.

Supreme Court's decision on reservation in reservation

A bench of seven judges of the Supreme Court had said in its decision delivered on August 2, 2024 that reservation can also be given to sub-categories in Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. This constitutional bench of the Supreme Court had given this decision by a vote of six to one. Justice BR Gavai was also included in this bench. He had said that the government cannot give full reservation to any one tribe. He had said in his decision that creamy layer should also come in Other Backward Classes (OBC) reservation like Scheduled Castes and Tribes. But he did not tell how the creamy layer would be determined.

This bench included then CJI Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Manoj Mishra, Justice BR Gavai, Justice Pankaj Mithal, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, Justice Bela Trivedi. Justice Bela Trivedi's decision was different from the rest of the judges.

Justice BR Gavai greeting the people present after taking oath as the Chief Justice of the country.

Decision given on bulldozer justice too

On November 14, 2024, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court gave its verdict on the bulldozer justice being carried out across the country. It said that demolishing a person's house or property only because he is a criminal or he is accused of a crime is against the law. In its decision, the court had given several guidelines related to giving notice, hearing and issuing demolition orders.

This decision was given by a bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Vishwanathan. The bench had said that before demolishing a house or any property, a notice of at least 15 days must be given. This notice must be sent by registered post. The notice must also be pasted on the alleged illegal structure. The court had said that an earlier date should not be given on the notice. To avoid this, the court had said that a copy of the notice should be sent to the collector or district magistrate by email.

PC:NDTVINDIA