BR Gavai — The New CJI Who Was Part Of Landmark Article 370 Ruling, Recused In Rahul Gandhi Case

Justice Gavai concurred with the unanimous verdict upholding the constitutional validity of the abrogation of Article 370.

Born on November 24, 1960, in Amravati, Maharashtra, Justice Gavai began his legal career on March 16, 1985.

Source : PTI

Justice BR Gavai Profile: Justice Bhushan Ramakrishna Gavai took oath as the 52nd Chief Justice of India, succeeding Justice Sanjiv Khanna on Wednesday, May 14. CJI Gavai, who was a part of around 700 Benches in the last six years, is scheduled to retire on 23 November 2025.

He is the first CJI who practises Buddhism and the second person from the Dalit community to serve the role. Before him, former CJI KG Balakrishnan became the first Dalit CJI in 2007. 

The CJI's father, Ramkrishna Suryabhan Gavai, was a close associate of Babasaheb Ambedkar. Ramkrishna Suryabhan Gavai founded the Ambedkarite outfit, the Republican Party of India (Gavai) and was the party's MP in the Lok Sabha in 1998. He later served as Governor of Bihar, Sikkim, and Kerala between 2006 and 2011 during the UPA rule. He was also closely associated with the Congress party for a very long time. 

In July 2023, Justice Gavai offered to recuse from a defamation case involving Congress MP Rahul Gandhi. 

"There is some difficulty on my part… Though (my father) was not a Congress member, he was associated with Congress and very closely… for more than 40 years," he had said.

Who Is Justice Gavai?

Born on November 24, 1960, in Amravati, Maharashtra, Justice Gavai began his legal career on March 16, 1985. CJI Gavai studied in a municipal Marathi-medium school till Class 7, after which he variously spent time in Mumbai, Nagpur and Amravati.

He initially worked with the late barrister Raja S. Bhonsale, a former Advocate General and High Court judge, until 1987. He later practised independently at the Bombay High Court and, from 1990 onwards, primarily at its Nagpur Bench, focusing on constitutional and administrative law.

Throughout his legal career, Justice Gavai served as standing counsel for the municipal corporations of Nagpur and Amravati, as well as for Amravati University. He represented various local bodies and councils across the Vidarbha region. He also served as Assistant Government Pleader and Additional Public Prosecutor at the Nagpur Bench between August 1992 and July 1993. He was appointed Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor for the same bench on January 17, 2000.

Justice Gavai was elevated as an Additional Judge of the Bombay High Court on November 14,  2003, and was confirmed as a permanent judge on November 12, 2005. During his tenure, he presided over cases at multiple benches, including Mumbai, Nagpur, Aurangabad, and Panaji.

Key Judgments of Justice BR Gavai

Abrogation Of Special Status for Jammu and Kashmir (2023)

Justice Gavai was part of a five-judge Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, and Surya Kant. Justice Gavai concurred with the unanimous verdict upholding the constitutional validity of the abrogation of Article 370. The Court ruled that the Centre’s action in revoking Jammu and Kashmir’s special status was lawful and within its constitutional mandate. The Bench also directed the restoration of statehood and mandated the Election Commission of India to hold assembly elections in Jammu and Kashmir by 30 September 2024.

Demonetisation Verdict 

Justice Gavai observed that the Union had adequately consulted the Reserve Bank of India before initiating the policy and held that the government possesses the power to declare all series of any denomination as invalid legal tender. He further ruled that the scheme passed the "test of proportionality’ and was executed in a reasonable manner". Justice B V Nagarathna, the sole dissenter, acknowledged the intent but called the implementation procedurally flawed and unlawful.

Excise Duty Exemption

Justice Gavai, along with Justices Arun Mishra and M R Shah, ruled that the Union Government is within its rights to withdraw excise duty exemptions in the public interest, particularly when scientific evidence suggests harm to public health. The judgment dealt with the excise duty exemptions granted to products like pan masala and tobacco, which were later withdrawn due to their carcinogenic properties.