‘When country faces crises, Constitution keeps us united,' says CJI Gavai, cites BR Ambedkar's reply
CJI Gavai was addressing a function after the inauguration of advocate chambers and multi-level parking at the Allahabad high court.
Also Read: Govt notifies appointment of 3 SC judges day after president Murmu's approval
'When the Constitution was being made and its final draft was presented before the Constituent Assembly, at that time some people used to say that the Constitution is too federal while some used to say that it is too unitary,' PTI news agency quoted CJI Gavai as saying.
"Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar had replied that the Constitution is neither wholly federal nor wholly unitary. But one thing I can tell you is that we have given a Constitution which will keep India united and strong both in times of peace and war," CJI Gavai added.
Also Read: 'Aamchi' vs 'Tyanchi' Mumbai: CJI Gavai explains gap between the two in Supreme Court
He stated that India has been on the path of development after independence due to the Constitution, and compared India to neighbouring countries and their experience of development.
Also Read: CJI Gavai displeased over protocol lapse
"Today we see what is the condition of our neighbouring countries. And India is making a journey towards development after independence. Whenever there has been a crisis in the country, it has remained united and strong. The credit for this should be given to the Constitution," he said.
CJI Gavai, during the gathering, also emphasised that it was the fundamental duty of the government to reached out every last citizen in the country.
"It is our fundamental duty to reach out to the last citizen of this country who needs justice. Be it the legislature, the executive or the judiciary everyone has to reach out to that citizen," the CJI said.
He also stated, 'I have always been saying that the bar and the bench are two sides of the same coin. Unless the bar and the bench work together, the chariot of justice cannot move forward.'
The Chief Justice of India praised the Allahabad high court for being a role model for the country, citing the incident where the judges vacated 12 bungalows for the construction of a complex for lawyers.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
9 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Devendra Fadnavis: BJP wants to contest civic polls under Mahayuti alliance
Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis on Monday said that the BJP wants to contest the local body polls under Mahayuti alliance with its partners Shiv Sena and NCP but in seats where it is not possible, the allies 'should not work against each other'. Fadnavis was speaking to mediapersons in Wardha after a meeting with BJP office-bearers and local leaders to assess the preparations for civic polls, which is expected to be held later this year. 'The BJP wants to contest the local body elections with alliance partners (Shiv Sena and NCP) under Mahayuti banner. Wherever this is not possible for local reasons we will have a friendly fight,' he said. 'Ideally since we are a coalition government, we would like to continue the contest as Mahayuti. But wherever we do not contest under an alliance, we should ensure there is no bitterness and nobody works against each other,' the BJP leader added. Fadnavis also expressed confidence over the alliance winning the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation, claiming that the next mayor of Mumbai will be from Mahayuti. 'The next mayor in Mumbai will be from Mahayuti. It does not matter whether Shiv Sena (UBT) and MNS come together or fight separately. One thing is very clear that Mahayuti will win the elections in BMC and also have its Mayor in Mumbai,' he said. Mentioning about BJP's record victory in last year's Assembly polls — the party won 137 seats — the chief minister said, 'In the next five years, our government will fulfill the aspirations of the common man. When the government completes five years, Maharashtra will be completely transformed.' Launching an attack on the Opposition Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA), he added, 'The opposition cannot compete with us on the development agenda. Therefore, they come out with a new narrative every day. On the Maharashtra Special Public Security Act, they started attacking the government mindlessly. This shows their total disregard for the Constitution and democracy,' he said, stressing the Act was not against political opponents.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Why did Justice Varma submit to in-house inquiry if it was contrary to Constitution, Supreme Court asks
The Supreme Court on Monday (July 28, 2025) questioned High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma's choice to submit to an in-house inquiry procedure into an allegation of 'burnt cash' found at his official residential premises in Delhi, despite finding the procedure to be 'completely contrary to the Constitutional scheme'. A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih asked whether he was at the time looking for a favourable outcome. Supreme Court hearing on Justice Varma's petition updates: SC asks Sibal to place on record the fact-finding committee report, adjourns case to July 30 The query came after senior advocate Kapil Sibal complained that the action taken by the Supreme Court at the time, including release of sensitive visual and audio materials showing 'burnt currency', 'convicted' Justice Varma in the public eye. 'There was a public furore, media interactions named the judge, accusations were levelled against the judge and the findings of the inquiry committee found its way into the public domain. He was convicted in the public eye from day one,' Mr. Sibal argued. Mr. Sibal said the process of removal of a judge was covered under Article 124(4) of the Constitution. The inquiry had to be done under the Judges Inquiry Act. The in-house procedure was meant to 'enhance' the moral vigour of the judiciary and depicted zero tolerance to judicial misconduct. 'Violation of Article 121' The senior counsel said the outing of sensitive material regarding a sitting High Court judge and very public discussions on his conduct violated the bar under Article 121 of the Constitution. 'Article 121 restricts discussions even in the Parliament on a sitting judge unless there is evidence of proven misconduct against him… Here, he was already 'convicted' in the public eye. The in-house inquiry procedure was devised to enhance the moral authority of the judiciary. The conduct of the in-house inquiry and its report, now in the public domain, hardly meet that objective,' Mr. Sibal argued. Mr. Sibal challenged the inquiry committee's finding of misbehaviour against Justice Varma. 'If cash is found in an outhouse, what is the behaviour of the judge to do with it… There is no 'behaviour' or 'misbehaviour' involved. They have to prove the cash belonged to him. They never found that… There could never have been a recommendation for my [read Justice Varma's] removal,' Mr. Sibal argued. 'Political overtones' The counsel said the issue of 'removal' of the judge has taken on political overtones. 'But removal is also a political procedure,' Justice Datta observed. 'Yes, inside the Parliament, not outside,' Mr. Sibal responded. 'You could have raised these points immediately, without submitting to the committee's jurisdiction… why did you not?' Justice Datta asked. Mr. Sibal contended that the decision of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna (now retired) in May to forward the committee report and recommendation for the removal of Justice Varma was 'illegal'. 'Why do you think sending it to the President, who is the appointing authority of the judge, illegal? And what is wrong in sending it to the Prime Minister? He is the leader of the Council of Ministers. His advice is taken at the time of appointment of judges. Sending it to the President or the Prime Minister does not mean the Chief Justice is trying to impress or persuade the House to accept his point of view,' Justice Datta responded. The court listed the case on July 30, directing Mr. Sibal to place the inquiry committee's report on record.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Op Sindoor debate: How can 'gora' in White House declare ceasefire? asks Owaisi; opposes India-Pak Asia Cup match
AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi NEW DELHI: AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi on Monday lashed out at the government over US President Donald Trump declaring a ceasefire between India and Pakistan before New Delhi's official statement on May 10. During a debate in Lok Sabha on Operation Sindoor , Owaisi asked: "How can a ' gora' sitting in the White House announce a ceasefire on India's behalf? Is this your nationalism? If Uncle Sam [Trump] makes the announcement, what message does that send to our armed forces? A naval officer stationed at sea must be didn't my own Prime Minister declare the ceasefire?" "The success of Operation Sindoor created euphoria across the nation, but unfortunately, the government failed to capitalise on it. I say this with responsibility: The Pakistani Army, its ISI, and its deep state have only one objective -- to weaken India." Owaisi also lashed out at the government over an India-Pakistan Asia Cup cricket match scheduled to take place on September 14 in the UAE. The Hyderabad MP said: "The Prime Minister once said, blood and water cannot flow together, and talks and terror cannot go hand in hand. In that case, after the killing of civilians in Baisaran valley, does your conscience permit playing a cricket match with Pakistan? You've cut off trade ties, shut down airspace, and stopped 80% of engagement, but you're still ready to play cricket? On what moral ground?' Owaisi also sought accountability on the Pahalgam attack, saying: How did the four rats [terrorists] slip in and massacre civilians?' 'What deterrence are you talking about? You carried out surgical strikes, you bombed Balakot, yet Pahalgam still happened. This shows your deterrence has failed. Your Kashmir policy has failed. And then, a country we consider our strategic ally, its head of state, invites the Pakistani army chief, the very man whose speech provoked the massacre of our people. How is that acceptable?' Oawisi asked.
