Latest news with #BhushanRGavai
Hindustan Times
19-06-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
The need to find common ground
Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai's advice to the Union government to refrain from selectively acting on collegium recommendations is timely. HT reported on Thursday that CJI Gavai issued this message after presiding over his first collegium meeting on May 26. According to people familiar with the matter, CJI Gavai was emphatic that segregating names from a batch of recommendations not only disturbs the seniority of judges but also sends an improper message about the collegium's authority and functioning. India has a nuanced process to pick judges for constitutional courts — where the senior-most judges pick judicial candidates and their names are confirmed by the executive, pending background checks. Selectively picking candidates out of a batch of names recommended by the collegium creates an unfavourable perception of bias and hurts the public standing of the judiciary. The smooth running of the judiciary — one of the pillars of India's democracy — depends on an honest and transparent working relationship between the courts and the executive. The selective picking of names by the executive, therefore, threatens to upset that delicate balance by creating an uneven playing field where some names are given precedence over others. Not only is this detrimental to critical processes such as seniority and filling of vacancies but also the standing of particular judges. This is not the first time such concerns have been raised. In 2014, then CJI RM Lodha wrote to then law minister Ravi Shankar Prasad, objecting to the government's unilateral decision to drop former solicitor general Gopal Subramanium from a list of four recommended judges for the Supreme Court. Subramanium later withdrew his nomination. Between 2022 and 2023, a bench led by justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul noted that 'selective appointments' damaged the 'element of workable trust' needed between the judiciary and the executive, and sent 'a wrong signal'. The relationship between the government and the judiciary has remained fraught since a showdown over the proposed National Judicial Appointments Commission Act. This newspaper has been a constant advocate for greater transparency in the working of the collegium. But just because the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) — which guides the appointment and transfer of judges in constitutional courts — does not explicitly prohibit segregation, it doesn't mean that the practice should continue. The Centre should reconsider its stance.
Indian Express
11-06-2025
- Business
- Indian Express
Thane-Bhayandar mega projects: Days after scrapping tenders, MMRDA seeks details of L&T's ‘Rs 3,000 crore lower' bid
Days after scrapping two tenders worth Rs 14,000 crore for the Thane-Ghodbunder to Bhayandar tunnel and elevated road projects in the 'larger public interest', the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) has asked Larsen & Toubro (L&T) Ltd to provide detailed financial estimates which were part of its bid. This comes after L&T disclosed before the Supreme Court that its price bid was over Rs 3,000 crore lower than the lowest bidder declared by MMRDA. The L&T had claimed before the SC that compared to Megha Engineering and Infrastructure Ltd (MEIL) which was declared as the lowest bidder for both the projects, its price bid was almost Rs 2,521 crore less in case of the tunnel project, and Rs 609 crore less for the elevated road project. According to sources, the financial estimates from L&T from its earlier bid will play a crucial role in the fresh tendering process the MMRDA plans to initiate. They said that the 'sanctity of the sealed bid process was compromised', since L&T voluntarily revealed its bid in court. The two projects are proposed to link Thane with Mira-Bhayandar and are part of an extension of the Mumbai Coastal Road project. The first project, estimated at Rs 8,000 crore, is a 5-km twin tunnel of 14.6-metre diameter, connecting Gaimukh near the mouth of Vasai Creek in Mira-Bhayandar to the Fountain Hotel junction at Shilphata in Thane. The second project, with estimated cost of Rs 6,000 crore is a 9.8-km elevated creek road bridge, will connect Bhayandar with Ghodbunder Road in Thane. The MMRDA, in its June 10 communication made through its Superintendent Engineer, referred to proceedings before the Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai, through which the company had challenged May 20 orders passed by the Bombay High Court. The vacation bench of the HC had refused relief to L&T on its pleas which claimed that the MMRDA had decided to open financial bids for the two projects by excluding L&T, prompting it to approach SC. On May 29, the SC, after perusing L &T's disclosure, had warned the MMRDA that its failure to carry out re-tendering process might lead to court to stay the tenders in question. The next day, the SC noted that MMRDA has 'fairly' submitted that the state has decided to scrap the entire tender process 'in larger public interest', after which the court disposed of L&T's appeal as 'infructuous'. In a press statement issued on the same day, MMRDA had stated that it was 'actively considering a downward revision of the base cost by approximately Rs 3,000 crore, based on price quotations disclosed during the proceedings, to ensure optimal use of public funds'. Taking it further, the MMRDA in its June 10 letter claimed that L&T had 'voluntarily/unilaterally disclosed its financial bids submitted to MMRDA as a part of the tender process' before SC. The disclosure had claimed L&T's price bids were significantly lower than those of other responsive bidders. The L&T had quoted Rs. 5,554 crore for the elevated road project and Rs. 6,498 crore for the road tunnel project. The authority said that while it 'defended confidentiality and legal validity of technical evaluation process, in the spirit of transparency and larger public interest' before the Supreme Court, it was 'prudent to re-examine the L&T's estimates', therefore 'voluntarily proposed to scrap tender process' and 'to re-tender with appropriate revision of the base price of the projects.' The MMRDA said that it was requesting L&T to provide within seven working days the detailed financial estimates/price bids submitted by it for both the projects, to 'ensure completeness of the bid records'. The development authority for the MMR region also sought from L&T the supporting calculation sheets or explanatory notes that were part of its financial bid, along with rate analysis and detailed justification.
Hindustan Times
11-06-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
‘Equality and representation go hand in hand': CJI Bhushan R Gavai
Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai on Tuesday said the true strength of Indian democracy lies in its ability to continuously evolve while revisiting and redefining the idea of representation, even 75 years after the Constitution came into force. During his address at the Oxford Union in the United Kingdom, he emphasised that equality and representation are not competing ideals but complementary forces that drive India's constitutional vision forward. CJI Gavai asserted that representation and equality are not opposing ideals. 'Rather, they reinforce each other,' said the judge, as he drew on landmark Indian Supreme Court judgments and the legacy of Dr BR Ambedkar to underscore how the Constitution remains a living document aimed at dismantling entrenched hierarchies. Justice Gavai, the 52nd CJI and only the second dalit to hold the highest judicial office in India, made a compelling case for substantive equality — a model that goes beyond formal equality to correct historical disadvantages. Citing the previous apex court's decisions, he maintained that affirmative action is integral to equality under the Constitution and added that over the decades, the idea of representation has evolved through mechanisms such as reservations in promotions, age and eligibility relaxations, and targeted scholarships. The CJI noted how this idea was extended in rulings such as NALSA Vs Union of India (2014), which recognised the rights of transgender persons and mandated their inclusion through reservations, and the 2020 judgment granting permanent commission to women in the Indian armed forces. 'In several other decisions, the Supreme Court has also emphasised the need for reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities, ensuring their meaningful participation in society and their integration into governance and institutional frameworks,' he said. Speaking just months after Parliament passed a constitutional amendment to reserve seats for women in legislatures, and the apex court upheld subclassification within Scheduled Caste quotas, Justice Gavai framed these developments as evidence of a constitutional project in motion that is responsive to evolving ideas of justice. 'The Constitution of India carries within it the heartbeat of those who were never meant to be compels the State not only to protect rights but to actively uplift, to affirm, to repair,' he asserted . Citing Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak's seminal essay 'Can the Subaltern Speak?', the CJI remarked: 'Yes, the subaltern can speak — and they have been speaking all along. The question is no longer whether they can speak, but whether society is truly listening.'
Hindustan Times
06-06-2025
- Business
- Hindustan Times
CJI Gavai hails decision to allow foreign lawyers to practise in India
Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai on Thursday welcomed the Bar Council of India's (BCI) decision to allow foreign lawyers and law firms to practise foreign law in India, terming it a crucial step in opening up India's legal ecosystem to global best practices and elevating the country's status as an international arbitration hub. Delivering the keynote address at the 3rd Edition of the International Conference on 'Arbitrating Indo-UK Commercial Disputes' in London, CJI Gavai said: 'The decision of the Bar Council of India will provide a pathway to introduce global best practices in the Indian arbitration ecosystem which will be effective in increasing the overall quality of arbitration in India.' The CJI was referring to the BCI's notification on May 14 this year, that formally brought into effect the rules for the registration and regulation of foreign lawyers and foreign law firms in India. These rules permit foreign lawyers to practise only non-litigious matters involving foreign law, international law and arbitration, especially in cross-border and commercial disputes. 'Foreign lawyers may participate in international commercial arbitration conducted in India, provided such arbitration involves foreign or international law, thereby promoting India as a viable destination for international arbitration without compromising the rights of Indian legal professionals,' he said. Until this regulatory change, foreign lawyers were barred from practising in India unless they met the stringent requirements under the Advocates Act, 1961. Even non-litigious work was largely off limits unless done through the narrow 'fly-in, fly-out' channel. The CJI noted that the legal and business communities of India and the UK were growing increasingly interconnected. 'This strong camaraderie is well-positioned to foster the expansion of the arbitration ecosystem in both countries in the near future,' he added. Justice Gavai further emphasised that India's aspiration to become a preferred venue for international arbitration required more than just legal infrastructure: 'It is not an overstatement to say that for India to become a leading hub for international commercial arbitration, the international arbitration community must have access to high-quality, independent and impartial arbitrators, both as a matter of fact and of perception,' he said. Highlighting the need for robust institutional support, CJI Gavai pointed to India's recent growth in home-grown arbitration centres such as the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration (MCIA), the India Arbitration and Mediation Centre in Hyderabad, and the Nani Palkhivala Arbitration Centre. He also cited the central government's 2019 move to establish the India International Arbitration Centre in New Delhi. 'These centres strive for professionalism, efficiency, transparency, and impartiality in arbitral proceedings by providing high quality of arbitral services and by maintaining panels of accredited arbitrators both at national and international level,' he said. The CJI acknowledged that India had much to learn from the UK's experience. 'India can learn extensively from the United Kingdom, which has some of the world's leading arbitral institutions here in London such as the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA)…These institutions are known for their access to the most eminent arbitrators, efficient, flexible, and impartial administration of arbitration and other alternate dispute resolution proceedings,' he added. Stressing the finality and certainty of arbitral awards as a core strength of international arbitration, the CJI said, 'The finality of an arbitral award is the most crucial aspect in international commercial arbitration. It ensures that once an award is rendered, it is conclusive and binding on the parties involved, providing them with certainty and closure.' The BCI's 2025 notification builds on its earlier 2023 framework, which had laid the groundwork for regulating foreign legal practice while protecting the interests of Indian lawyers. It introduces a reciprocity-based model that also allows Indian law firms and advocates to register as foreign legal consultants in jurisdictions abroad without giving up their rights to practise Indian law domestically. To ensure oversight and prevent unfair competition, the rules impose strict registration and renewal norms, including documentation on legal qualifications, no-objection certificates, and declarations of compliance. The move is being seen as part of India's effort to modernise its legal services market.
Hindustan Times
05-06-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Post retirement code of conduct
Of the many irritants that threaten to mar the image of the judicial system, the apparent lure of post-retirement sinecures for sitting judges of constitutional courts must rank near the top. While there is nothing technically in either laws or the Constitution that bar judges from accepting post-retirement positions immediately after retirement, it creates an unsavoury perception of favouritism. This perception gets strengthened if the office is offered by the government or the ruling party, given that the government is the largest litigant. Unfortunately, administrations across the political spectrum have paid little attention to the spirit of the Constitution, instead prioritising short-term benefit by offering plum positions, ranging from governorships and Rajya Sabha berths to commission chairperson positions. Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai's comments on post-retirement jobs this week should be seen in this context. Addressing a high-powered roundtable on judicial independence at the Supreme Court of the UK, CJI Gavai sounded a strong note of caution against judges accepting government posts or contesting elections immediately after retirement, warning that such practices raise 'significant ethical concerns' and risk eroding public confidence in the judiciary's independence. 'A judge contesting an election for a political office can lead to doubts regarding the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, as it may be seen as a conflict of interest or an attempt to gain favour with the government,' he said. The CJI is right in asserting that the timing and nature of many such post-retirement engagements carry the risk of undermining citizens' trust in judicial integrity and create the perception that decisions were influenced by the prospect of future appointments or political involvement. This can be damaging to the judiciary, which derives its moral authority from the citizen's implicit trust in its ability to be impartial and remain unsullied by political or economic considerations. CJI Gavai is correct in trying to underline the costs of such individual decisions on the institution's long-term credibility. A public pledge by the CJI and some senior judges to not accept post-retirement positions is a step in the right direction. It is not this newspaper's position that judges shouldn't be engaged in any form of public life after their retirement. But any position of power that is in proximity to the government must carry a mandatory cooling-off period. And the push to safeguard judicial credibility and transparency must come not only from the judges, but also political parties. Get 360° coverage—from daily headlines to 100 year archives.
