CJI B.R. Gavai revives 61-year-old case, accuses Nehru government of breaking judicial seniority norms
Speaking at a UK Supreme Court forum, CJI B.R. Gavai highlights past political interference in judicial appointments, reigniting debate over judicial independence.
Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai has reignited a long-standing debate over judicial appointments by citing a controversial decision made over six decades ago. Speaking at a roundtable conference hosted by the UK Supreme Court, CJI Gavai criticized the Congress-era government for undermining judicial independence by violating the seniority convention in key appointments.
Addressing the theme “Maintaining Judicial Legitimacy and Public Trust,” Gavai remarked that prior to the 1993 collegium system, the final authority in judicial appointments rested with the government—a practice that, he asserted, compromised the judiciary’s independence on more than one occasion.
Nehru government overrode seniority in 1964, says CJI B.R. Gavai
CJI Gavai specifically referenced the appointment of Justice P.B. Gajendragadkar as the seventh Chief Justice of India in 1964. According to Gavai, Justice Gajendragadkar was elevated over two more senior judges, Justice Syed Jaffer Imam and Justice Hans Raj Khanna—who were reportedly overlooked on health grounds. The appointment was made during the tenure of Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru.
Justice Gajendragadkar assumed office on February 1, 1964, and served as CJI until March 15, 1966.
Who was justice P.B. Gajendragadkar?
Born in Maharashtra’s Satara district on March 16, 1901, Justice Gajendragadkar hailed from a family of Sanskrit scholars. He completed his post-graduation at Deccan College, Pune, followed by a law degree from ILS Law College in 1926. He began practicing at the Bombay High Court and went on to become a judge in 1945. By 1956, he had ascended to the Supreme Court.
During his career, Gajendragadkar chaired several high-profile commissions, including the Law Commission, Labour Commission, Press Trust of India, and the Jammu & Kashmir Inquiry Commission.
Controversy and the shanti bhushan episode
His elevation wasn’t without criticism. Allegations of political favoritism have followed Gajendragadkar throughout his career. After his retirement, another controversy surfaced involving future Law Minister Shanti Bhushan.
Reportedly, Gajendragadkar opposed Bhushan’s potential appointment as CJI, citing his relatively young age, he was 40 at the time. When Bhushan later became Law Minister under the Janata Party government, Gajendragadkar feared he might be removed from his position as Chairman of the Law Commission.
Shanti Bhushan recounted the episode in his autobiography, writing: “Gajendragadkar visited me several times, pleading that I not remove him from the Chairmanship.”
Why Gavai’s statement matters now
CJI Gavai’s remarks come at a time of heightened tension between the Supreme Court and the central government over the collegium system. His comments have once again brought the spotlight onto the delicate balance between judicial independence and executive influence in appointments.
The reference to a historical breach of protocol by the Nehru government adds new weight to an ongoing constitutional debate and signals that questions of transparency and fairness in judicial selection are far from settled.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment