BR Gavai appointed Chief Justice of India with effect from May 14
President Draupadi Murmu has appointed Supreme Court Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai as the Chief Justice of India with effect from May 14, 2025.Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal shared the update on social media platform. "In exercise of the powers conferred by the Constitution of India is pleased to appoint Shri Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai, Judge of the Supreme Court of India as the Chief Justice of India with effect from May 14, 2025," the Minister wrote on X.
advertisementThe current Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, will retire on May 13.
Justice B R Gavai will be the 52th Chief Justice of India (CJI). However, he will serve as the Chief Justice of India only for six months as he is due to retire in November 2025.Justice Gavai was appointed as a judge of the Supreme Court of India on May 24, 2019. Born on November 24, 1960, in Amravati, Maharashtra. His father, Late RS Gavai, was former Governor of Bihar and Kerala and a noted social activist .The newly appointed CJI began his judicial career as an Additional Judge of the Bombay High Court on November 14, 2003, and became a Permanent Judge on November 12, 2005. He served for over 15 years, presiding over benches at Mumbai, Nagpur, Aurangabad, and Panaji.advertisementHe will also be the second CJI to come from a Scheduled Caste community. The first CJI belonging to a scheduled caste community was Justice KG Balakrishnan.KEY VERDICTSJustice BR Gavai authored the majority opinion upholding the 2016 demonetisation scheme, affirming the Union government's power to declare currency invalid and stating that the scheme satisfied the 'test of proportionality'.In a landmark judgment, he held that demolishing properties of accused individuals without due process is unconstitutional, emphasising that executive authorities cannot act as judges and execute demolitions without legal procedures.He was also a part of the bench that examined the constitutionality of the Electoral Bond Scheme, addressing concerns about transparency in political funding.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
10 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Three-year legal practice rule for judicial services could deter the brightest minds
Written by Shailesh Kumar and Raju Kumar There is no doubt that judges ought to be trained in legal procedures, judgment-writing, evaluating evidence and assessing societal situations. This is particularly so in subordinate courts that are the final arbiters in a majority of cases, and which deal with factual questions, raw emotions, and engage mostly members of marginalised communities. The right question, therefore, is not whether aspiring judicial magistrates in India should have such training, but rather whether such knowledge and experience can only come from three years of practice as an advocate. Let's begin by acknowledging two public secrets of the Indian legal profession. First, a law graduate can obtain a certificate of practice without entering a courtroom. Second, it is still, primarily — and regrettably so — an institution run by caste-, class-, and gender-based networks, and not by merit per se. The 14th Law Commission Report (1958) said that subordinate judicial officers would benefit from three to five years' practice at the Bar, but made an exception for the proposed All India Judicial Services (AIJS) for the higher judiciary, where fresh law graduates could be recruited directly by subjecting them to post-selection training. In the All India Judges' Association I case (1992), the Supreme Court directed the central government to set up the AIJS and allowed fresh law graduates to apply for it with post-selection training. And in the All India Judges' Association II case (1993), the Court emphasised that three years of practice as a lawyer was essential for the subordinate judiciary. Soon after, the Justice Shetty Commission (1999) found that the rule had not drawn the 'best candidates': The most successful ones were nearing 30, while top law graduates chose corporate roles or academia instead. Acting on these findings, the Supreme Court in All India Judges' Association III (2002) struck down the rule to make subordinate judicial careers accessible to fresh law graduates. We must mention here that the first five National Law Universities (NLUs) had already been established, with several batches of NLSIU having graduated by then. After more than two decades, the matter resurfaced on May 20, when the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Gavai, reinstated the three-year legal practice requirement — this time citing High Courts' opinions and without the support of any empirical evidence. The assertion that appointing law graduates without Bar experience has failed in the past is largely anecdotal. The Court mainly relies on the opinion of the High Courts, but there are no research findings to back this broad generalisation. Without empirical evidence, such sweeping policy decisions may do more harm than good. Back in 1999, the Shetty Commission had advised against this very requirement. Its reasoning was straightforward: The new five-year integrated BA LLB (Hons) programme already includes practical training components, such as internships, moot courts, and simulations. So, the Supreme Court should have enquired about the demography and institutional background of graduates who entered the subordinate judiciary since 2002, and whether these were the 'best talent' sought, by outlining certain criteria, to assess if the Shetty Commission's objective remained unfulfilled. Reinstituting the three-year Bar requirement not only disregards that recommendation but also ignores how legal education has evolved to bridge the very gaps this rule claims to address. Many top-performing students from NLUs regularly secure roles at leading law firms or express strong interest in public service. Yet they are now told to wait for three years, regardless of their readiness or aptitude. This delay wastes potential and may discourage some of the best minds from pursuing judicial careers altogether. What about the financial reality? A (discretionary) monthly stipend of Rs 2,000 to Rs 20,000 — where a senior advocate might earn Rs 20 lakh for a single hearing in a higher court — is a severe pay gap and is barely enough to get by, especially in tier-1 and tier-2 cities. For many students — particularly those from SC/ST/OBC communities, economically weaker sections, rural areas, women, or those with caregiving responsibilities — this rule effectively shuts the door on a judicial career before it can begin. After five to six years of education, it unintentionally pushes them into other fields where they can earn a living straight after graduation. The rule favours those who can afford to wait — in other words, the elite class. India already faces a chronic shortage of judges, especially at the district level. By restricting who can apply, this rule reduces the eligible talent pool even further. Fewer recruits mean higher caseloads for sitting judges, longer delays for litigants, and declining public trust in the system's ability to deliver timely justice. Under this new rule, aspiring judges must wait three years, possibly juggling low-paying work or uncertain prospects in the meantime. The alternative should be to invest in what happens after selection, or during the course degree itself. Legal education should incorporate daily courtroom exposure in the final year — similar to the clinical internships followed in medical colleges — as an integral part of the curriculum. In the past, there was a two-part training structure: One part involved real-world learning under experienced judges, while the other focused on classroom-based judicial instruction. This method was not perfect, but it worked — and with some updates, it could serve the purpose well again. Rather than holding people back, the system should focus on preparing them thoroughly once they are in. Let us not assume that the 'best' law students come only from (expensive) NLUs; perhaps the most trained ones do, because of the structural benefits NLU students have in India's several-tier legal education system. Moreover, the learning process for a judge should not end once they take an oath. Like other professionals, judges need to stay updated. One way to do this is by requiring newly appointed judges to undergo structured training — perhaps approximately 200 hours — within their first year and a half on the bench. The goal is to make continuing education a normal part of the job, not a one-time event. The Supreme Court must also examine the quality of training the High Courts provide for probationary magistrates. Research findings from one of the authors, albeit in a specific context, suggest that judicial training has mostly been poor, and there has been resistance — particularly from district judges — to undergo training. This is a serious policy issue with severe implications for the future. Considering that the problems outlined exist, is this the right medicine? The Supreme Court ought to have relied on solid evidence rather than opinions, even if they came from the High Courts. Shailesh Kumar is a Lecturer in Law at Royal Holloway, University of London and a Commonwealth Scholar. Raju Kumar is a legal consultant at Prohibition & Excise Department, Govt of Bihar, and a graduate from Chanakya National Law University, Patna
Indian Express
10 minutes ago
- Indian Express
CLAT PG 2025: Delhi High Court asks NLUs to amend key, declare results
The Delhi High Court on Friday granted relief to CLAT-PG candidates over alleged discrepancies in the answer key and directed the consortium of NLUs to declare results soon. A bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela's decision came over the plea of students in relation to a couple of answers in the key. The court, however, rejected the objection with respect to the declared answer to a third question, and asked the consortium of national law universities (NLUs) to accordingly award marks to the candidates. The court passed the order while deciding three pleas seeking rectification of errors in the final answer key of the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT)-PG 2025. The bench's verdict highlighted the issue of a high fee of Rs 1,000 charged by the consortium per question for raising the objection to the provisional answer key, observing there ought to be a 'fine balance' between the concerns of the candidates and the institutions. While comparing the fee charged for objected questions by other organisations, the fees sought by the consortium 'appeared to be excessive and disproportionate' but the consortium's concern that it was required to keep frivolous individuals and coaching institutes at bay also did not appear to be 'fanciful or imaginative', it added. The bench, however, expected the consortium to take heed of its observations and take appropriate steps to 'avoid such excessive fee in the next examinations'. 'It may be advisable for the consortium to place this issue before the committee headed by Justice G. Raghuram (retd) for his valuable opinion which may be adhered to by it,' the bench said. The court ruled on the correctness of the answers in the answer key after considering each question and the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners and the consortium. CLAT determines admissions to undergraduate and postgraduate law courses in national law universities in the country. CLAT PG 2025 was held on December 1, 2024. Multiple pleas were filed in different high courts alleging several questions in the exam were wrong. On February 6, the Supreme Court transferred all the petitions over the issue to the Delhi High Court for a 'consistent adjudication'. The top court passed the direction on the transfer petitions of the consortium.
United News of India
41 minutes ago
- United News of India
Modi did not contradict Trump on his claim of making him surrender: Rahul
Rajgir, June 06 (UNI) Congress leader Rahul Gandhi on Friday said US President Donald Trump had claimed eleven times that he forced Prime Minister Narendra Modi to surrender during operation Sindoor, but he did not contradict it and remained silent. Gandhi, while addressing a conference organised by his party here, said that PM Modi had the habit of surrender. Trump had claimed eleven times that he forced Modi to surrender during the operation Sindoor carried out recently, but the latter did not contradict and remained silent on the issue, he remarked. Congress leader also took potshots at Modi on his decision to conduct a caste census, saying he was also reluctant on the issue. When he exerted slight pressure on Modi on the caste census, he surrendered and announced the decision of his government to conduct a national-level caste census, he added. PM Modi had rejected the demand of Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar for a national-level caste census in 2021, when he had called on him, leading an all-party delegation from the state. After his refusal, Nitish Kumar's government had conducted a caste census in Bihar from its resources and named it as caste survey, as carrying out any sort of census is the right of the Central government. Even in parliament on several occasions and during its replies in the Supreme Court in several cases, the Narendra Modi government had expressed its opinion against the caste census in the country. UNI KKS BD
