Poonam Sharma
The recent actions of Chief Justice of India, D.Y. Gavai, taking personal control of the appointments of tribunal judges, raise very serious constitutional questions. Though judicial independence is a cardinal feature of the Indian Constitution, the approach of Gavai seems to stretch that principle beyond constitutional limits, setting an autocratic precedent that is highly questionable legally.
Indiscrimination
On one hand, CJI Gavai speaks strongly about the need for the Chief Justice of India to appoint judges to tribunals dealing with criminal and quasi-judicial matters. Yet on the other hand, he remains completely silent on why this very principle is not applied to the Waqf Tribunals. If the CJI’s authority is essential for ensuring independence and fairness in other tribunals, then the same standard must apply to the Waqf Tribunal as well. Selective application of judicial philosophy weakens the credibility of the system and raises a fundamental question: why should the Waqf Tribunal remain outside the constitutional discipline that the CJI demands elsewhere?
The system of specialized tribunals for the quick disposal of cases in a particular sector has been in place for quite some time in this country. In that category, we have the Income Tax Tribunal, Sales Tax Tribunals, Green Tribunals, and other Tribunals among others. With those bodies, appointments are guided by statutory provisions or rules, which generally involve the government, the collegium of courts, or other prescribed authorities.
Constitutional basis
However, CJI Gavai, in the last days of his tenure, is reported to have taken total control over appointments in various tribunals. It is said to be in direct conflict with constitutional limits, since there is no legislative or constitutional basis for the Supreme Court Chief Justice personally making such appointments. By extending his authority into areas where the law provides no role to the judiciary, Gavai has set a dangerous precedent that conflates judicial independence with personal discretion.
The reason cited—expediting appointments and clearing backlog—is not without merit. The tribunals in India are facing enormous pendency, and delayed appointments do affect dispensation of effective justice. However, expediency cannot supplant constitutional authority. In bypassing statutory provisions and consultation with the government, the attempt by Gavai was likely to undermine the rule of law. Independence of the judiciary should insulate it from executive interference rather than let the judiciary take the law into its own hands.
Fairness and impartiality
Other concerns have been raised based on reports of selective and discriminatory appointments. The allegations indicate that the proper representation of communities, a principle that such bodies as Waqf Tribunals adhere to, has been ignored. In the past, such appointments have required a balancing act so that all relevant communities’ stakeholders are present. Gavai’s actions, therefore, unilaterally raise not only legal but also ethical and procedural concerns about fairness and impartiality.
The timing of these appointments is also indicative of opportunistic use of tenure. With his retirement in sight, Gavai fast-tracked decisions without leaving any scope for government input or collegium deliberation. Efficiency may have been advanced as a reason but the appearance of consolidating power in the final months of one’s tenure compromises the judiciary’s image as a neutral institution.
Legally, the precedents are unconstitutional:
The Constitution and statutes grant no authority to the CJI to make such unilateral appointments other specialized tribunals. The perception that Gavai exceeded his brief has come to blur the distinction between judicial independence and personal discretion, imperiling exposure to internal politicization and public distrust. Judicial autonomy is not a license for autocracy; it’s a safeguard against partiality, opacity, and arbitrariness. In sum, the actions of CJI Gavai, packaged as judicial independence, seem to cross constitutional limits. Centralizing appointments where no legal mandate exists, bypassing consultation processes, and perceived favoritism have raised the specter of misuse of judicial autonomy. True independence must seek a balance between autonomy and legality, fairness, and accountability. Any deviation portends the erosion of public faith in India’s justice delivery system and the conversion of a pillar of democracy into a vehicle of personal discretion.
