CJI Gavai Backs Article 370 Abrogation, Says Step Consistent With Ambedkar's Vision
Last Updated:
Gavai noted that the Supreme Court was guided by this vision of a unified India under a single constitution when it delivered its verdict on Article 370
Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai has endorsed the abrogation of Article 370, stating that the decision is consistent with the vision and ideology of Dr BR Ambedkar, the chief architect of the Indian Constitution.
At the inauguration of the Constitution Preamble Park at Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar School of Law, Nagpur University, on Saturday, CJI Gavai firmly asserted that the idea of a separate constitution for a state was never part of Ambedkar's vision for a unified India.
Gavai, a member of the five-judge Constitution bench led by then Chief Justice DY Chandrachud that unanimously upheld the Centre's decision to abrogate Article 370 in December 2023, elaborated on Ambedkar's foundational principles. He highlighted Ambedkar's stance during the drafting of the Constitution, emphasising that 'the country needs only one constitution. The country would be governed by one constitution. If we want to keep the country united, we need only one constitution."
Gavai noted that the Supreme Court was guided by this vision of a unified India under a single constitution when it delivered its verdict on Article 370.
The Chief Justice also mentioned that Dr Ambedkar had faced criticism for providing what some perceived as 'too much federalism" in the Constitution, raising concerns about the country's unity in times of crisis or war. However, Ambedkar had confidently asserted that the Constitution was designed to address all challenges and would keep the nation united.
(With agency inputs)
First Published:
June 29, 2025, 05:41 IST
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
14 minutes ago
- News18
Lalit Modi Petitions Supreme Court To Order BCCI To Pay ED's FEMA Penalty
Last Updated: Lalit Modi has approached the Supreme Court, seeking a directive for BCCI to pay a Rs 10.65 crore penalty imposed by the ED. The Bombay HC had previously rejected his petition. Former Indian Premier League (IPL) head Lalit Modi has approached the Supreme Court, seeking a directive for the BCCI (Board of Control for Cricket in India) to pay a Rs 10.65 crore penalty imposed on him by the ED. Previously, the Bombay High Court had rejected Lalit Modi's petition, which sought a directive for the BCCI to cover this penalty imposed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for alleged violations of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) during the 2009 IPL season in South Africa. The court refused his claim that the BCCI's by-laws required them to indemnify him, stating that the requested reliefs were 'wholly misconceived." Not only was Lalit Modi's writ petition dismissed, but a bench of Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain, in their order dated December 19 last year, also directed him to pay costs of Rs 1 lakh within four weeks. In his special leave petition (SLP) to the Supreme Court, Lalit Modi argued that according to the Rules and Regulations to the Memorandum of Association, the BCCI is obliged to indemnify its office bearers for losses and expenses incurred during their official duties. Citing Rule 34 of the Rules and Regulations of the Memorandum of Association of BCCI, the plea, filed through advocate Vikas Mehta, pointed out that Modi served as Vice President of BCCI from 2005 to 2010 and Chairman of IPL from 2007 to 2010. The SLP highlighted the 'discriminatory manner" in which the BCCI indemnified Honorary Secretary N. Srinivasan and Treasurer M.P. Pandove against penalties imposed on them. It added that Lalit Modi paid the Rs 1 lakh costs to avoid being seen as non-compliant or in contempt of court, though the payment was made without prejudice to his right to challenge the Bombay High Court's decision. Shortly after the conclusion of IPL 2010, Lalit Modi was suspended from BCCI following accusations of misconduct, indiscipline, and financial irregularities. The BCCI launched an investigation against him, and a committee found him guilty of these charges, leading to a lifetime ban in 2013.
Deccan Herald
19 minutes ago
- Deccan Herald
EC begins massive Special Intensive Revision drive in Bihar
Notwithstanding the mounting criticism from the Opposition that the Government was trying to enforce the NRC through backdoors, the EC clarified the drive, also called Special Intensive Revision (SIR), has begun as mandated by the Constitution under Article 326.
India Gazette
31 minutes ago
- India Gazette
Bar Council of India issues advisory against unapproved online LLM programmes
New Delhi [India], June 29 (ANI): In a decisive step toward preserving the credibility of legal education in India, the Bar Council of India (BCI) has issued a formal advisory against the proliferation of unapproved LL.M. (Master of Laws) programmes offered in online, distance, or hybrid formats. This advisory reinforces the exclusive regulatory role of the BCI and emphasizes compliance with existing legal and academic frameworks. The letter, authored by Justice Rajendra Menon, former Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court and Co-Chairman of the Standing Committee on Legal Education, was addressed to the Registrar Generals of all High Courts as well as the Supreme Court of India. Copies of the letter were also circulated to universities and State Bar Councils to ensure compliance and initiate appropriate action. The advisory reiterates the binding authority of Supreme Court rulings, the UGC (Open and Distance Learning) Regulations, 2020, and BCI's own Legal Education Rules (2008 and 2020), under which LL.M. programmes must secure prior approval before being conducted via non-traditional methods. Any deviation, it warns, threatens the standard, uniformity, and legal sanctity of postgraduate legal education across the country. Letter issued in this regards stated that, alarmed by the growing number of institutions offering programmes under alternative titles such as LL.M. (Professional), Executive LL.M., or in Cyber Law, the BCI has highlighted that many of these courses are being run without mandatory approvals. Such practices, it stated, not only violate Supreme Court directives but also mislead students and degrade academic quality. The Bar Council clarified that under the Advocates Act, 1961, it is the only statutory authority empowered to regulate both undergraduate and postgraduate law programmes. No other entity--including UGC or autonomous universities--can validate LL.M. courses independently. The Council emphasized that an LL.M. degree is the minimum qualification required for teaching law, and therefore any relaxation in quality or regulatory compliance directly affects the legal profession. In light of these violations, the BCI has urged High Courts take judicial notice of the BCI's exclusive authority in legal education, Reject qualifications obtained from unapproved LL.M. programmes for appointments or promotions and Require institutions and individuals to submit compliance verification from the BCI where necessary. To protect students and uphold public trust, the Bar Council plans to release a public advisory cautioning against enrollment in such unauthorized programmes. It is also preparing to initiate contempt proceedings and other legal measures against institutions found violating these guidelines. (ANI)
