A Dalit Chief Justice in a Hindu majoritarian India
Over the past decade, the new normal has been an increasing decline in standards of judicial independence and integrity. As the 52nd chief justice retires, we reflect on his complicated legacy as a jurist, an administrator, and a Dalit chief justice in a withering democracy.
Indira Jaising
Published on: 21 November 2025, 02:25 pm
WHILE EVALUATING the tenure of outgoing Chief Justices of India (‘CJI’), one is constantly looking for the gold standard against which to match it. And unfortunately, in the past decade, I have been unable to find that gold standard. Tragically, but truly, we seem to be stuck in a situation where the new normal is a further decline in standards of independence and institutional integrity rather than an ascending standard towards a legacy of judicial independence, judicial integrity of the institution, and a lasting constitutional jurisprudence. The task of evaluating becomes painful.
Three chief justices of India have retired in quick succession of each other and it would be useful to look at their respective social backgrounds and “legacy”. The first of the three came from a Brahmin community - a dynasty judge - Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, the second came from a professional legacy - Justice Sanjiv Khanna - who as we all know was chosen out of turn to be the Chief Justice of India, and the third belonged to a Dalit community, Justice B.R. Gavai.
Looking for differences among the outgoing chief justices is normal and there are many differences between the three: some not so significant, some extraordinarily significant.
In terms of tenure length, both CJI Khanna and CJI Gavai had short tenures and hence evaluation of their jurisprudential legacy would be difficult; opportunities were rare in that short period. It must be said though that during his short tenure CJI Khanna was much appreciated by many for the transparency he showed in making public the material available against Justice Yashwant Varma of the Delhi High Court when cash was found at his residence. He later recommended that the matter be carried forward by the Government to its logical conclusion by setting up an inquiry under the Judges (Inquiry) Act. This single step enhances the stature of the Judiciary in achieving some form of accountability for misconduct within its ranks.
On the judicial side, his order staying the filing of further suits relating to the Places of Worship Act put a halt to the build up of communal violence in the country and was no small achievement. A challenge to the validity of the Act is pending and we will no doubt see it come to some conclusion during the tenure of the incoming Chief Justice. Under CJI Khanna’s tenure, three appointments were made to the Supreme Court - among which was that of Justice Joymalya Bagchi, who was appointed out of turn with the apparent aim of selecting him to become a future chief justice - an emerging phenomenon we will come back to later.
Although the tenure of CJI Gavai was also short, expectations from him were high given he was to be the only second Dalit chief justice in a Brahmin dominated court (with a Brahmin, CJI Chandrachud, who also came from the Bombay HC, having most recently steered the Court for a long tenure).
