Ex-CJI B.R. Gavai Affirms Judicial Independence, Cautions Against Overreach in Activism, Condemns 'Bulldozer Justice'

New Delhi, November 26, 2025 – In a candid post-retirement interview, former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai asserted that he encountered no political or executive interference during his tenure, while issuing a stern warning against the excesses of judicial activism and vehemently criticizing the controversial practice of "bulldozer justice" as a blatant violation of constitutional norms.

Gavai, who stepped down as the 52nd CJI on November 23 after a brief six-month-and-10-day stint marked by significant judicial interventions, spoke to ANI on the heels of his retirement. His remarks underscore a commitment to the judiciary's autonomy amid ongoing debates over its role in a polarized political landscape.

"No, genuinely no," Gavai responded emphatically when asked if he faced any pressure from politicians or the executive during his time at the helm of the Supreme Court. He defended the Collegium system for judicial appointments, dismissing allegations of opacity as unfounded and emphasizing its transparency in upholding the separation of powers enshrined in the Indian Constitution.

Delving into the boundaries of judicial power, Gavai reiterated a familiar refrain: judicial activism, while essential for safeguarding the rights of the marginalized, must not devolve into "judicial terrorism." "There are limits within which judicial activism should act. As I always say, judicial activism should not turn into judicial terrorism," he stated. He elaborated that courts must intervene on behalf of those unable to access justice due to socio-economic hurdles, but such actions cannot transgress constitutional limits. "Permitting a person to approach the court on their behalf fulfils our promise of economic and social justice. But even then, judicial activism cannot cross its limits."

Gavai reserved some of his strongest words for "bulldozer justice"—the practice adopted by certain state administrations of summarily demolishing properties of individuals accused or suspected of crimes, often without due process or notice. He described it as an egregious example of executive overreach, where the state usurps the judiciary's role as arbiter. Recalling a landmark Supreme Court judgment during his tenure that declared such actions unconstitutional, Gavai highlighted how the court had intervened after reports of homes being razed arbitrarily, throttling citizens' voices through fear.

"When merely because a citizen was involved in a criminal act, his house was demolished, this was not only violating his rights and the rights of other inmates of the house, but was like taking the law into one's own hands," he said. Gavai questioned the morality of collective punishment, asking, "What is the crime committed by his family? Why bulldoze their roof?" He noted that such demolitions punish innocents—parents, siblings, and children—contravening the rule of law that prohibits punishing the guilty by proxy.

The Supreme Court, under Gavai's leadership, had issued directives mandating prior notice, hearings, and accountability for officials involved in demolitions. It empowered citizens to approach High Courts directly for redress and warned of contempt proceedings for violations. In cases of illegal demolitions, the court ruled that governments must reconstruct affected properties at their expense, with costs recoverable from errant officers. "It is a case wherein it is not proper for me to justify my judgment, but I think that would be a case where judicial activism should be promoted, but not beyond a particular limit," Gavai reflected.

On the structure of judicial tenures, Gavai dismissed the need for fixed terms for CJIs or Supreme Court judges, citing his own abbreviated but fulfilling period, which included major vacations like summer, Dussehra, and Diwali. "It included summer vacation, Dussehra vacation and Diwali vacation. But I could perform whatever I had anticipated and planned out. I don't think it's necessary," he said.

Gavai's tenure, though short, was notable for landmark rulings reinforcing procedural safeguards, including against arbitrary arrests and demolitions, and for striking down provisions in stringent laws like the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) to prioritize "bail, not jail" principles. His comments come at a time when the judiciary faces scrutiny over its balance between activism and restraint, with critics accusing it of either overstepping or yielding to executive pressures.