Bengaluru Chief Justice of India BR Gavai said on Friday that he had been “severely criticised” within his “own community” for his 2024 judgment applying the creamy layer principle to Scheduled Castes.
Speaking at his farewell function organised by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), the CJI defended his ruling and said that while judges are generally not expected to justify their decisions, he could speak freely now that he was demitting office.
He added that there existed a rationale behind the judgment for a son of a chief secretary, studying in a premier Delhi institution could not be expected to compete with the child of an agricultural labourer attending a rural government school.
“I have been severely criticised regarding that judgment in my community. But I have stayed quiet as a judge is not expected to clarify his judgement. I ask myself whether a person from a tribal area belonging to a Scheduled Caste category and having no means for higher education, can be made to compete with my son, who because of his father’s office, is entitled to the best of education?” the CJI said.
He was referring to the apex court’s August 2024 judgment where it had called for identification of creamy layer among the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to take them out of the fold of affirmative action or reservation.
{{/usCountry}}He was referring to the apex court’s August 2024 judgment where it had called for identification of creamy layer among the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to take them out of the fold of affirmative action or reservation.
{{/usCountry}}At the time, justice Gavai, who was part of the Constitution bench that passed the order, had said in his concurring judgment, that the ultimate aim of reservation was to achieve real equality in the country, and for this purpose, the creamy layer among SCs and STs must be identified and excluded from the benefits of affirmative action. The union government had later clarified that the Supreme Court’s opinion was a non-binding recommendation and that the creamy layer concept will not be applied to the SC, ST categories, as there was no provision for the same in the Constitution.
On Friday, however, CJI Gavai reiterated that equality under Article 14 does not mean treating everyone the same. Quoting Dr BR Ambedkar, he said that ignoring socio-economic disadvantages can worsen inequality, and special measures must be taken to ensure real equality for those who are disadvantaged or “lagging behind.”
“Article 14 believes in equality, but equality does not mean equal treatment to all,” he said.
The CJI then recounted a personal experience, when one of his law clerks, who belonged to the Scheduled Caste category but came from a privileged background decided to forego the benefits of reservation, saying that he already had access to the best education.
“That one boy understood what politicians refuse to understand for reasons best known to them,” CJI Gavai said.
He also reflected on his own journey and career. He said he had been a lawyer for 18 years and a judge for over 22 years, and throughout his career, he had been guided by the Constitution. He reiterated that he deeply admired and was inspired by the works of Dr Ambedkar and by his belief that judges must uphold the Constitution’s vision of social and economic justice, “even when it attracts criticism.”
He said he was content with his 40-year journey in law and justice, and that he was confident that his work reflected his “commitment to equality, fairness, and the constitutional vision of India.”
The CJI also said that the Supreme Court had adopted a “swadeshi interpretation” in its recent judgement on the issue of Presidential Reference, relying solely on Indian precedents rather than foreign judgments.
He made the remark in response to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta’s observation that a “fresh breeze of Indianness” had entered judgments under CJI Gavai and Justice Surya Kant. The CJI said that the five-judge Constitution bench had consciously preferred domestic jurisprudence in its decision.
On November 20, a five-judge bench led by the Chief Justice of India stated that no timeline can be fixed for the President and Governors to act on Bills passed by state legislatures. The Supreme Court was delivering its opinion on a reference from President Droupadi Murmu, following an April 8 judgment that had set timelines for the two constitutional functionaries.