Judiciary must be free from executive interference: Chief Justice of India

At his felicitation, CJI Bhushan Gavai liberally quoted B R Ambedkar, asked political parties to eschew discrimination over “caste and creed”

MUMBAI: “India achieved freedom after a long battle, and if the freedom has to be sustained, political parties will have to put discrimination over caste and creed aside and ensure that the country remains united,” said Bhushan Gavai, Chief Justice of India (CJI) quoting Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar on Tuesday. The CJI also pointed out that Ambedkar had insisted on the supremacy of the Constitution and believed that the judiciary should be free from interference by the executive.

Gavai addressed a lecture on ‘The Constitution of India’ in the Vidhan Bhavan, where he was also felicitated by chief minister Devendra Fadnavis and others. (Anshuman Poyrekar/ Hindustan Times)

Gavai was addressing a lecture on ‘The Constitution of India’ in the Vidhan Bhavan, where he was also felicitated by chief minister Devendra Fadnavis and others. He was the first CJI felicitated in recent history by the state legislature for being a ‘son of the soil’. All this happened more than a month after Gavai expressed disappointment at the absence of senior state officials at a felicitation event held in his honour in Mumbai soon after his elevation as Chief Justice.

Gavai pointed out that Ambedkar had said that for the country to be strong, the judiciary had to work as a watchdog. “It is the custodian of citizens’ rights under the Constitution and should be free from executive interference,” he said, citing the fact that if a Supreme Court judge had to be removed, a two-thirds majority of both Houses was required.

“Unlike other Constitutions, we are not providing a mechanism to ensure that a particular political party comes to power, and thus the criticism that the directive principles of state policy are not enforceable in court is true,” he said. “However, if the rulers do not make attempts to bring in social and financial equality by following the directive principles, they are answerable to the voters. While they may not be answerable to the courts of law, they will have to be answerable to the electorate,” he noted, by quoting Ambedkar.

MVA urges Gavai to clear pending cases on Sena and NCP split

Since the CJI’s talk was on the importance of the Constitution, the opposition Maharashtra Vikas Aghadi (MVA) seized the opportunity to hand him a letter, requesting him to personally look into its grievances and “protect the Constitution”.

“A petition is pending before the Supreme Court on the disqualification of MLAs who split the Shiv Sena and NCP,” stated the letter signed by leaders of the MVA parties. “The decision on the real Shiv Sena and NCP and their party symbols is also pending. In November 2024, the Maharashtra assembly elections took place, and yet the apex court could not give its verdict even after three years. This may lead to the destruction of democracy.”

The Supreme Court was approached in June 2022, following a mass defection by Eknath Shinde and around 40 other Shiv Sena MLAs. The Uddhav Thackeray-led MVA government fell after the rebel MLAs declared support to the BJP. Subsequently, the Election Commission recognised the Eknath Shinde-led Shiv Sena as the original party, which was also challenged in the apex court.

More than a year later, history repeated itself when Ajit Pawar, with the help of 40-odd MLAs, split the NCP and declared support to the Mahayuti government in July 2023. The petitions for disqualification of the rebel MLAs and the dispute of which the “real” party is are also pending in the SC.

The MVA also gave another letter to the CJI on the delay by Speaker Rahul Narwekar in appointing an assembly Leader of the Opposition (LOP). The parties stated that while they were aware that the court would not interfere in legislative proceedings, they wanted to bring to the CJI’s attention how constitutional principles were being grossly violated.

The letter mentioned that the state legislature secretariat had informed them that the Speaker had the right to take a decision in this matter, as there were no specific rules for the appointment of an LOP. “There is a 50-year precedent of the LOP being appointed from the opposition party with the highest number of MLAs,” stated the letter. “Based on this, we were expecting the appointment but even after three sessions of the state legislature, the Speaker is yet to take a decision. Like the CM’s post, the LOP is also a constitutional position, and the Speaker not taking a decision on this also violates constitutional provisions.”