Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai, aka BR Gavai, the present Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India, has hit headlines for making insensitive comments at a Hindu petitioner while dismissing his petition.
While the judge may have been right in making the order, the harsh thoughtless comments have hurt the majority of Hindus across the country. Let us take a look at some of his gems of statements and orders he has authored over the past few years.
#1 Mocked Hindu Petitioner For Seeking Restoration Of Beheaded Vishnu Idol At Khajuraho
The Supreme Court on 16 September 2025 refused to hear a plea seeking restoration of a beheaded 7-foot idol of Lord Vishnu at the Javari temple in Khajuraho, Madhya Pradesh, in Rakesh Dalal v. Union of India. A Bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih held the matter was for the ASI, not the Court. CJI Gavai told the petitioner, “Go and ask the deity itself to do something now… It’s an archaeological site and ASI needs to give permission etc. Sorry.” Petitioner Rakesh Dalal argued the idol was mutilated during Mughal invasions and government inaction violated devotees’ right to worship.
#2 Wants Nationwide Fire Cracker Ban
On 12 September 2025, Chief Justice of India BR Gavai stressed that the firecracker ban should extend nationwide, not just Delhi, to ensure all citizens enjoy pollution-free air. He highlighted the hardships faced by street workers and daily wagers, noting pollution is a national issue, citing Amritsar as worse than Delhi. The CJI emphasized that policies must consider both public health and livelihoods of those dependent on the firecracker industry. Senior advocates highlighted the severe impact on citizens, while the Court reaffirmed the need for a complete ban unless “green crackers” can be scientifically proven to cause minimal pollution.
#3 “Have Some Decorum, He Is Still Justice Varma” – Advices Lawyer to Address Tainted Judge Yashwant Varma As “Justice Varma”
In a striking courtroom exchange on 21 July 2025, Chief Justice of India BR Gavai reprimanded Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara for referring to Delhi High Court judge Yashwant Varma, embroiled in a cash recovery controversy, simply as “Varma.” Nedumpara, seeking urgent listing of his petition demanding an FIR against Justice Varma, was interrupted by CJI Gavai, who insisted, “He is still Justice Varma. How do you address him? Have some decorum. You are referring to a learned judge. He is still a judge of the Court.” Nedumpara replied, “I don’t think that greatness can apply to him. Matter has to be listed.” CJI snapped back, “Don’t dictate to the Court.” The clash highlighted the judiciary’s internal contradiction, insisting on ceremonial respect for a judge under serious scrutiny. Despite allegations and a pending writ filed by Justice Varma himself, the Court remained firm on maintaining titles and decorum, even as Nedumpara argued that “an FIR has to be registered.”
#4 Stays Action Against Psephologist Who Misled People Through False Data
In August 2025, a bench led by Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice N.V. Anjaria stayed proceedings against psephologist and Lokniti-CSDS co-director Sanjay Kumar, who was facing multiple FIRs for a now-deleted tweet claiming a sharp decline in voter numbers during the Maharashtra assembly elections. Kumar had apologised, calling it an ‘unintentional error’ caused by a data misreading. The court issued notice on his plea to quash the complaints.
#5 “Interfered” In Decision Taken On Stray Dogs Menace
On 13 August 2025, Chief Justice of India BR Gavai said, “I will look into this,” while responding to concerns over conflicting Supreme Court orders on the stray dog issue. CJI Gavai, heading a Bench, constituted a three-judge bench to examine the matter after advocate Nanita Sharma, for NGO Conference for Human Rights (India), highlighted contradictions. She pointed out that a May 2024 order by Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol barred indiscriminate killing of canines, while a more recent 11 August 2025 order by Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan directed civic bodies in Delhi-NCR to remove all stray dogs from public spaces within eight weeks. After CJI Gavai intervention, the Supreme Court modified its earlier order on stray dogs in Delhi-NCR, directing release in original areas post-sterilisation and vaccination, except for rabid or aggressive animals. Expanding the issue nationwide, it sought a pan-India policy, imposed costs on NGOs/individuals, and emphasised feeding zones while restricting public feeding to ensure safety.
#6 Said Reservation Like Train Compartment
On a seven-judge bench, contributed to the ruling that states can create sub-categories in the Scheduled Castes for reservation purposes and advocated, in a concurring opinion, for the application of creamy layer exclusion to SCs and STs. Justice BR Gavai, in the ruling on the sub-classification of Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) stated, “I find that the attitude of the categories in the Presidential List opposing such a sub-classification is that of a person in the general compartment of the train. Firstly, the persons outside the compartment struggled to get into the general compartment. However, once they get inside it, they make every attempt possible to prevent the persons outside such a compartment from entering it.”
#7 Said Bulldozer Demolitions Of Accused’s Property Unconstitutional
In a judgment on 13 November 2024, a Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan condemned the practice of demolishing properties of individuals merely for being accused or convicted. The Court held that the executive cannot act as judge, emphasizing that arbitrary demolition violates the principles of rule of law, natural justice, and the right to life under Article 21. It reinforced that a house represents years of effort, stability, and family aspirations, and demolition without due process constitutes collective punishment. The judgment laid down strict procedural safeguards: issuance of show-cause notices, personal hearings, documentation, digital portals for transparency, and videography of demolitions. Only unauthorized, non-compoundable constructions can be demolished after exhausting all legal remedies. CJI Gavai highlighted that such executive actions without judicial oversight are wholly arbitrary and an abuse of process, reinforcing constitutional protections against high-handed state actions.
#8 Granted Bail To Manish Sisodia In Delhi Excise Scam “Based On Delay”
On 9 August 2024, a Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan granted bail to former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia in both CBI and ED cases related to the Delhi Excise Liquor Policy. The Court observed that Sisodia had been incarcerated for over seventeen months while the trials had barely commenced, violating his fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21. It emphasized that bail cannot be withheld as punishment and that Sisodia required adequate time to inspect over 69,000 pages of documents. Bail was granted with conditions including furnishing bonds, surrendering his passport, and reporting to authorities.
#9 Granted Temporary Bail To Teesta Setalvad After Urgent Midnight Hearing & Then Regular Bail Later
On 1 July 2023, CJI BR Gavai was part of the Supreme Court bench that granted Teesta Setalvad temporary bail after the Gujarat High Court denied her release. The urgent late-night hearing convened a larger three-judge panel following a deadlock in a two-judge bench. Critics highlighted the speed and prioritization of her case, contrasting it with systemic delays for ordinary citizens. Setalvad, accused of falsifying evidence and coaching witnesses in the 2002 Gujarat riots, has strong political ties to Congress. Gavai’s intervention ensured procedural relief, but the move sparked debate over judicial impartiality and perceived preferential treatment in politically sensitive cases.
On 19 July 2023, a Supreme Court bench comprising CJI BR Gavai, AS Bopanna, and Dipankar Datta granted regular bail to civil rights activist Teesta Setalvad in connection with an FIR alleging fabrication of evidence in the 2002 Godhra riots. The Supreme Court quashed the High Court order, granting her bail and ensuring procedural fairness in light of prior interim bail and prolonged litigation.
#10 Stayed Rahul Gandhi’s Conviction In Modi Surname Remark Case
On 4 August 2023, a Supreme Court bench comprising BR Gavai, P.S. Narasimha, and Sanjay Kumar stayed the conviction of Rahul Gandhi in the “Modi surname” defamation case. Gandhi had been sentenced to two years’ imprisonment under Sections 499 and 500 IPC for his remarks linking the Modi surname to thieves. The Court noted the Trial Court gave no reasons for imposing the maximum sentence, which triggered disqualification under Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act. Considering the wide ramifications on Gandhi’s political rights and the electorate’s representation, the Court stayed the conviction while leaving the appeal to be decided on merits.
#11 Held Arrest Of NewsClick Founder Prabir Purkayastha As “Illegal”
On 6 March 2024, a Supreme Court bench of Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta invalidated the arrest and remand of 74-year-old journalist Prabir Purkayastha under the UAPA, citing violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution. The Court held that neither Purkayastha nor his counsel were provided the grounds of arrest in writing, rendering the detention illegal. The judgment emphasized that written communication of arrest or detention is sacrosanct, extending PMLA principles to UAPA cases. While quashing the arrest and remand orders, the Court directed Purkayastha’s release on furnishing bail bonds, without commenting on the merits of the case.
#12 Strikes Down Electoral Bonds Scheme As “Unconstitutional”
On 15 February 2024, a 5-judge Constitution Bench including Justice BR Gavai and Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud unanimously held that the Electoral Bonds Scheme violates the right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The Court ruled that anonymous political contributions obscure transparency, enabling quid pro quo arrangements and undermining informed voting. While the scheme aimed to curb black money, alternative methods like electronic transfers and electoral trusts exist. Consequently, the scheme and related amendments to the Income Tax, Companies, and Representation of Peoples Acts were struck down. SBI and ECI were directed to disclose past electoral bond transactions.
#13 Ordered Release Of Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Convicts
On 11 November 2022, a Bench of Justices BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna ordered the immediate release of six convicts; Nalini, Ravichandran, Jayakumar, Santhan, Murugan, and Robert Pius, who had served over three decades in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. The Court held that the Tamil Nadu Governor was bound by the State Cabinet’s 2018 recommendation for their premature release under Article 161 and erred in forwarding files to the Union. Citing conduct, rehabilitation, and parity with co-convict Perarivalan, the Court directed their release, emphasizing that prolonged delay violates the constitutional clemency scheme and the convicts’ rights.
#14 Fined Prashant Bhushan 1 Rupee For Contempt
On 31 August 2020, a 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, BR Gavai, and Krishna Murari, JJ. found advocate Prashant Bhushan guilty of criminal contempt for tweets criticizing the Supreme Court and sitting/former CJIs. The Court imposed a nominal fine of Re. 1, warning that non-payment would result in three months’ imprisonment and a three-year bar from practicing in the Court. The judgment emphasized that lawyers must respect the judiciary while exercising free speech, particularly in sub judice matters, and that malicious allegations undermine public trust. Fair criticism is allowed, but Bhushan’s tweets exceeded permissible bounds and showed no remorse.
#15 Asked “Why So Touchy?” When Swami Prasad Maurya Insulted Ramcharitmanas
The Supreme Court on January 25, 2024, stayed criminal proceedings against Samajwadi Party leader Swami Prasad Maurya, accused of insulting the Shri Ramcharitmanas and allegedly inciting the burning of its copies. A bench of Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta noted that Maurya’s remarks represented a “line of thought” and he could not be held responsible for subsequent acts. The Court observed, “Why are you so touchy about these things?” Notices were issued to the UP government and the complainant, and the Supreme Court agreed to examine Maurya’s special leave petition, pausing action while reviewing the matter further.
#16 Who Will Decide What Is Deceit In Religious Conversion, Asks Gavai
On 16 September 2025, the Supreme Court questioned the enforceability of stringent anti-conversion laws in States like Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and others, regulating interfaith marriages. Chief Justice B.R. Gavai highlighted the difficulty in determining whether a religious conversion is fraudulent. Senior advocates C.U. Singh, Indira Jaising, and Vrinda Grover argued that these Freedom of Religion Acts empower third parties to file complaints against interfaith couples, impose harsh penalties including 20-year to life sentences, and shift the burden of proof onto converts, effectively curbing religious freedom under Article 25. The court scheduled further hearings in six weeks.
CJI Gavai retires on 23 November 2025.
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
