Latest news with #B.R.Gavai
The Wire
18 hours ago
- Politics
- The Wire
In Landmark Move, Supreme Court Introduces Policy of Reservation For Its Staff
New Delhi: In a first such initiative, the Supreme Court of India has introduced an official policy of reservation in the direct appointment and promotion for Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) staff working in the apex court. This landmark development took effect from June 23, 2025 and marks a very significant shift in the internal administration of the top court. According to the new policy, the large number of posts (not including judges) wherein the policy of reservation will be applicable include registrars, senior personal assistants, assistant librarians, junior court assistants and chamber attendants. The model roster categorises all employees under three categories: SC, ST and unreserved, reported Hindustan Times. 'As per the directions of the Competent Authority, it is to notify for the information of all concerned that the Model Reservation Roster and Register has been uploaded on the Supnet (Court's internal email network) and it is made effective from June 23, 2025,' said a circular issued on June 24 to all employees and registrars of the Supreme Court. The circular also invited objections from employees in case of inaccuracies in the roster or register and asked them to direct such representations to the Registrar (Recruitment). 'Endevaour sets the tone for a more socially responsive judiciary': CJI The landmark policy shift has come in the tenure of Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, who is the second person from a Scheduled Caste background to hold the post of CJI. 'All government institutions and many high courts already have provisions for reservation for SCs and STs. So, why should the Supreme Court be an exception? The Supreme Court has delivered several landmark judgments on affirmative action, and as an institution, it had to apply it. Our actions must reflect our principles,' CJI Gavai told the newspaper. 'I have always maintained that equality and representation are not competing ideals but complementary forces that drive India's constitutional vision forward. Affirmative action is not an exception to equality but integral to its realisation. The endevaour sets the tone for a more socially responsive judiciary within its administrative remit,' he added. According to the Supreme Court circular, SC employees will be entitled to a 15% quota and ST employees a 7.5% quota in promotions. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
The Wire
20 hours ago
- Politics
- The Wire
60 Former Civil Servants Write to CJI Citing Conflicts of Interest in Central Empowered Committee
New Delhi: A group of 60 retired civil servants have written to Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai, raising concerns about the impartiality of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) which now comes under the aegis of the union environment ministry. The CEC was first created in 2002 under the insistence of the Supreme Court, to keep track of the judgments of the apex court pertaining to forests, wildlife and conservation and look into cases of non-compliance by various parties in these matters. The CEC also contained two independent members, apart from retired government officials. However, the new CEC – reconstituted in December 2023 – comprises only retired officials who have held high posts in the union environment ministry. The retired bureaucrats' letter to the CJI, dated June 30, notes their 'great concern' about the 'conflict of interest, and transgression of the principles of natural justice, which promises to take the diminution of India's forests even further down the road'. Signatories to the letter include Prakriti Srivastava, a former Principal Chief Conservator of Forests in Kerala, Meena Gupta, former Secretary to the union environment ministry, Anup Mukerji (former Chief Secretary of Bihar), N.C. Saxena (former Secretary to the Planning Commission) and Julio Ribeiro (former Director General of Police, Punjab). The CEC and its current members The Supreme Court constituted the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) in 2002. Its role was to keep track of the judgments of the apex court pertaining to forests, wildlife and conservation, and look into cases of non-compliance by various parties in these matters. Currently, the CEC has five members: a chairperson, three members and a member secretary. The current Chairperson of the CEC is Siddhanta Das. Das, who retired as the Director General of Forests and the Special Secretary in the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, is a former Indian Forest Service officer of the 1982 batch of the Odisha cadre. The other members of the CEC are C.P. Goyal, Sunil Limaye and J.R. Bhatt. Goyal is also a retired IFS officer and former Director General of Forests and Special Secretary of the union environment ministry, and a former Principal Chief Conservator of Forests in the Uttar Pradesh forest department. Limaye retired as a Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Chief Wildlife Warden in the Maharashtra forest department. Bhatt, a retired scientist, has served as the lead negotiator for India at the Paris Agreement and several subsequent Conferences of Parties under the United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change till COP 27, and was a director in the union environment ministry from April 2005 to September 2012. He was also an advisor to the ministry from September 2012 to March 2023. The Member Secretary of the CEC is Banumathi G., an IFS officer of the 2009 batch. She is currently the Assistant Inspector General of Forests at the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) which comes directly under the union environment ministry. The NTCA not only oversees Project Tiger, but also India's ambitious Project Cheetah in Madhya Pradesh. Conflicts of interest The letter by 60 former civil service officers to the Chief Justice of India dated June 30 points out their 'grave concerns' regarding several conflicts of interest. 'Two of the members of the CEC have held the topmost forest and wildlife posts under the government of India, that of Director General and Special Secretary and have retired recently,' the letter noted. 'A CEC which is comprised of officers who had held the highest positions in the MoEFCC, and were closely involved in policy making, can hardly be expected to give independent advice to the Supreme Court, advice that is different from what they gave while they were in the government,' it read. The letter said that it was a member of the CEC – who was then 'at the helm' in the union environment ministry – who prepared the Forest Conservation Amendment Bill 2023 and defended it before the Joint Parliamentary Committee that was instructed to look into the Bill and the various concerns that the public, including scientists and other experts, had raised. Several petitions submitted in the Supreme Court have challenged the Forest Conservation Amendment Act 2023. The cases are still being heard by the apex court, and its final decision on the matter is pending. The CEC and its members perform an advisory role to the Supreme Court, and will be advising the Court on this case as well. Another concern the letter raises is the lack of independent members in the current CEC. Experts had raised concerns about the new CEC In 2002 when the Supreme Court directed that the CEC be constituted, the CEC comprised three former officers of the union environment ministry, and two other members who were not linked to the union government in any way but had experience in the fields of wildlife, forests and conservation. 'In short, the Committee had not only expert members from the government, but also independent members who had not served in high positions in the government of India, nor had been involved in decisions of forest policy, thus ensuring impartiality and preventing conflict of interest,' the letter to the CJI dated June 30 read. However, in September 2023, the union environment ministry issued a new order specifying that the CEC would now report to the ministry and not the Supreme Court as it used to earlier. This order also announced that the union ministry would now choose the members of the CEC. The Indian Express reported that the environment ministry issued this order after the Supreme Court permitted this 'in the interest of all the stakeholders'. The new CEC, the ministry said, would also not have the two non-government members anymore. Experts had raised concerns at this move immediately. 'The underlying issue pertains to the primary motivation behind this action,' environmental policy researcher Debadityo Sinha, commented on X (formerly Twitter), five days after the ministry pronounced the order. 'It's widely understood that prioritising the 'ease of doing business' will inevitably overshadow all other considerations, leaving the government and CEC with limited leeway or alternative choices beyond adhering to political objectives.' Most of the environmental violation cases involve government actions, Sinha, said on X. 'The pertinent question arises: How can one anticipate the CEC to function independently or issue impartial judgments when its composition solely consists of civil servants appointed by the government?' Sinha also added that when considered alongside the recent revisions to the Forest (Conservation) Act of 1980, it was 'evident' that the union government had 'gained an unprecedented level of control over forests and a substantial influence over the State's jurisdiction concerning forests, which fall within the concurrent list of subjects'. 'This shift in authority has significant implications for the management and governance of our forests,' he said. 'It's already happening' The biased and partial advice given by the current CEC to the Supreme Court is already evident, the retired bureaucrats' letter said. The letter cited the example of the recent order by the Supreme Court on zudpi forests in Maharashtra. Zudpi forests are scrublands and grasslands, often designated as 'wastelands' because they do not typically contain lush tree cover. These lands, however, support a huge diversity of wildlife including critically endangered species such as the Great Indian bustard, a grassland-dwelling bird whose numbers have dwindled to less than 200 across India. This essentially makes the bird far rarer than a tiger in the wild. As per the former civil servants' letter, the Supreme Court on May 22 this year 'recommended the untrammelled use of such forests for 'compensatory afforestation' considering 'zudpi' forests as ecologically inferior forests as they cannot support thick stands of forest trees'. The Court had based this order on the CEC's recommendations, the letter said. It also added that diverting zudpi forests for non-forestry purposes is violative of the Supreme Court's Godavarman order of 1996 (which made it clear that any land that satisfied the dictionary meaning of a forest be considered a forest legally), and other recent orders pertaining to cases surrounding petitions against the amendments made to the Forest Conservation Act of 1980. 'As the Maharashtra zudpi forest case judgement clearly reveals, a CEC which is composed of only retired government officials merely reiterates the position of the government in its advice to the Supreme Court, a clear conflict of interest,' the letter noted. It urged the CJI to ensure that such a CEC not be allowed to advise the Court in the FCAA 2023 cases before it, 'or be part of other such important cases in the interest of the country's forests, wildlife and ecological security'.
Time of India
6 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Constitution above all three democracy wings, says CJI Gavai
Live Events (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel New Delhi: Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai on Wednesday said the Constitution of India is supreme, and all three wings of our democracy - the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary- are under the Constitution of CJI said this on Wednesday at a private event in his hometown of Amravati in eastern might be mentioned here that Vice President of India Jagdeep Dhankhar last month had remarked that the judiciary should not encroach on the role of other April, the Vice President had said that the Parliament is supreme and MPs are the ultimate masters of the Constitution. Dhankhar had further said that "there cannot be any authority above them".The VP had further raised questions over the remit of the Supreme Court within the framework of the government as defined in the at a Delhi University event in April, the Vice President had also said that "every word spoken by a constitutional functionary is guided by supreme national interest".CJI Gavai, on Wednesday, said that "there is always a discussion as to which wing of democracy - executive, legislature or judiciary - is supreme. Many say and believe Parliament is supreme but for me it is the Constitution".He added "neither the Parliament, nor the Executive nor the judiciary are supreme. It is only the Constitution of India which is supreme. All the wings are under the Constitution (of India)".Referring to a judgment passed by the top court on the foundation of the 'Basic Structure' doctrine, CJI Gavai said Parliament has the power to amend, but it cannot alter the basic structure of the Constitution.A judge does not become independent just by passing orders against the government, the CJI added."A judge should always remember that we have a duty, and we are custodians of the rights of citizens and constitutional values and principles. We don't just have power, but a duty is cast upon us," CJI Gavai said on Wednesday.A judge should not be guided by what people will say or feel about their judgment, he said."We have to think independently. What people will say cannot become a part of our decision-making process," CJI Gavai added. The top judge also asserted that he always let his judgments and work speak, and always stood by the fundamental rights enshrined in the referring to his judgment against " bulldozer justice ", he said the right to shelter is supreme.
The Hindu
6 days ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Ninety-day pan-India mediation campaign to start from July 1
Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Supreme Court judge, Justice Surya Kant, are scheduled to launch a 90-day long mediation campaign conceptualised by the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) and the Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee (MCPC) to tackle pending cases from the taluka courts to the State High Courts. The campaign, called 'Mediation for the Nation', would commence from July 1 and would continue till September 30. The pan-India mediation campaign intends to take mediation to 'every nook and cranny' as an alternative and people-friendly mode of dispute resolution. 'The categories of matters eligible for mediation include matrimonial disputes, accident claims, domestic violence, cheque bounce cases, commercial disputes, service matters, criminal compoundable cases, consumer disputes, debt recovery cases, partition and eviction cases, land acquisition matters, among others,' a statement issued by the Supreme Court explained. The press release said the special campaign intended to involve existing mediators, including professionals who have undergone the 40-hours mediation training recently. The mediation settlement efforts would continue throughout the week as per the convenience of the parties involved. The parties could opt to participate in the mediation proceedings online or offline or in hybrid mode. Taluka or District Legal Services authorities would facilitate online mediation within their respective jurisdictions. The campaign would be monitored by the Mediation Monitoring Committees of State High Courts.
The Hindu
7 days ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Supreme Court issues guidelines for retention, disposal of records
The Supreme Court on Thursday (June 26, 2025) issued guidelines for the retention and disposal of documents to create accountability and efficiency across all registry wings. The top court highlighted a lacuna over the management of administrative records. In a message, Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai said that over the years, the registry of the Supreme Court has witnessed a significant increase in the volume and diversity of administrative records generated across multiple branches. "While judicial records pertaining to case proceedings are governed by explicit provisions contained in Order LVI of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, and further elaborated in Chapter XXI of the Handbook on Practice and Office Procedure of the Supreme Court of India, 2017, a lacuna has persisted with respect to the management of administrative records," he said. The CJI continued, "This disparity leads to inconsistent practices across branches, affecting archival clarity and efficiency. The 'Guidelines for Retention and Destruction of Records 2025' aim to remedy this by promoting coherence, accountability, and efficiency in managing administrative records, including institutional decisions, policy implementations, inter-departmental correspondences, audits, and engagements with external stakeholders." CJI Gavai underscored the importance of properly managing these records for transparency and accountability and guidelines to establish a rational framework. "Operational efficiency is enhanced by the systematic elimination of obsolete documents, easing storage burdens and improving record retrieval speed. The Guidelines ensure compliance with audit and statutory obligations by defining appropriate retention periods based on fiscal, legal, and administrative relevance. They are aligned with national public record management standards." The guidelines were stated to have borne out of detailed consultations among registrars and officials of the registry. "I place on record my sincere appreciation for the efforts of Pradip Y. Ladekar, Registrar at the Supreme Court, who played the instrumental role in drafting these Guidelines. He was ably supported by his staff members throughout the process. I also appreciate Bharat Parashar, Secretary General, and S C Munghate, Officer on Special Duty (in the rank of Secretary General), for their leadership and guidance in steering the Registry through this important initiative," he said. According to the issued guidelines, original submission notes or paper books bearing signatures of the chief justice of India and judges of the Supreme Court to be preserved permanently. Further, policy files, office orders and circular files were to be preserved permanently. "The retention period of the records shall start after the final action or disposal of arbitration, litigation, enquiry or audit as the case may be. All the branches concerned, before destroying files/cases/records will ensure that no court case is pending in respect of the subject matter of the files/cases/records being destroyed/ weeded out," it said. In case the records of one branch or wing were co-related with those a different branch or records relating to the confidential branch, an intimation on "the pendency of court case is to be sent to them as soon as the court case is received in the section". Destruction and retention of records by the relevant branches should be carried out after due approval from the registrar concerned, it added. "The exercise of destruction of record normally be carried out during summer vacation/partial court working days. In case a scanned copy of documents/records is to be preserved beyond the retention period for the reasons to be recorded in writing decision may be taken by the concerned Registrar at the time of destruction of the record(s)," the guidelines said. It added, "Financial and budget-related documents and files should be maintained separately for each financial year with effect from April 1 to March 31. All other records, registers may be maintained separately for each calendar year, i.e., January 1 to December 31."
