Former Chief Justice of India B R Gavai on Wednesday stressed the need for judicial restraint in court remarks, cautioning that even casual observations can be taken out of context and amplified, especially on social media. Speaking at the Lokmat National Conclave 2025, Gavai said judges should focus on delivering reasoned judgments rather than making off-the-cuff comments from the Bench.
Addressing a panel discussion, Gavai reflected on his own experience, noting that a remark he once made in a lighter vein during court proceedings was later “blown out of proportion” and given an entirely different meaning. This, he said, underlined why judges must be careful while speaking in open court.
According to the former CJI, judges should never allow public approval or criticism to influence their decisions. He emphasised that adjudication must rest solely on the facts of the case, the applicable law, and the Constitution. Whether a judge is praised or opposed, he said, should be irrelevant to the judicial process.
Gavai also described social media as a growing challenge for the judiciary, observing that isolated words spoken by judges are often stripped of context and circulated widely. The best approach, he suggested, is for judges to “speak less” and let their judgments do the talking, echoing advice he said was shared by one of his colleagues.
During the discussion, Gavai also touched upon the constitutional importance of Directive Principles of State Policy. Referring to the 75th anniversary of the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case last year, he recalled that while the Supreme Court had been divided on the extent of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, there was broad agreement among judges on the significance of the Directive Principles. Over time, he noted, the Court moved away from the earlier view that Directive Principles must always yield to Fundamental Rights, recognising instead that both together form the “soul and conscience” of the Constitution.
On the question of institutional supremacy, the former CJI rejected the idea that either Parliament or the judiciary is supreme. Responding to past statements by constitutional authorities, Gavai said it is the Constitution of India that holds supremacy, with the legislature, executive, and judiciary all functioning within the limits set by it. While some friction and overlap between these organs is inevitable, he said, it would be incorrect to suggest that the judiciary has weakened over the past decade.
Drawing from his more than 22-year judicial career, including six and a half years at the Supreme Court, Gavai pushed back against the notion that judicial independence is measured by how often courts rule against the government. Judges, he said, decide cases based on evidence and law, and outcomes may sometimes favour the state and at other times individual citizens. Equating independence solely with rulings against the government, he added, reflects a misunderstanding of how courts function.
