By Bharat Global Time – Law & Justice Desk
June 11, 2025 | New Delhi
Judicial Tug of War at the Top Court?
A noticeable ideological shift seems to be underway at the Supreme Court of India. In recent rulings, Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai has either overturned or significantly modified three major decisions made under his predecessor, former CJI D.Y. Chandrachud. This has sparked debate on whether India’s top court is moving back towards a more traditional, constitution-bound interpretation of law.
1. Same-Sex Marriage: From Inclusion to Legislative Boundaries
During his tenure, CJI D.Y. Chandrachud had shown judicial sympathy towards same-sex couples, advocating for dignity, equality, and recognition of LGBTQ+ partnerships.
However, under CJI Gavai’s leadership, the court has made it clear:
“Marriage is a statutory and social institution. It is Parliament’s prerogative to define or alter its scope, not the judiciary’s.”
The move has disappointed LGBTQ+ activists but resonated strongly with conservative and traditional sections of Indian society, who believe in preserving cultural values.
2. Sedition Law: Reinstating the National Security Lens
Justice Chandrachud had earlier called for a reconsideration or repeal of the colonial-era sedition law (Section 124A), arguing it stifled free speech and dissent in a democracy.
But the new bench under CJI Gavai reversed that tone, asserting:
“Laws like sedition remain essential to protect the nation, especially in times of internal subversion and external threats.”
Legal experts believe this judgment reflects a nationalist stance, emphasizing security over unregulated liberty.
3. Bail in National Security Cases: From Humanitarian to Hardline
Under Justice Chandrachud, the Supreme Court had granted bail to several accused in UAPA and NSA-related cases, often citing long pre-trial detention and lack of conviction.
CJI Gavai’s recent ruling takes a different view:
“In matters of national security, humanitarian grounds cannot override the greater interest of law and order.”
This signals a more cautious and stringent approach to bail in sensitive cases involving terror, separatism, or anti-national activities.
Analysis: A Court of Law or Court of Philosophy?
| Issue | Under CJI Chandrachud | Under CJI Gavai |
|---|---|---|
| LGBTQ Rights | Inclusive, progressive | Within statutory limits |
| Sedition Law | Recommended repeal | Strong national security requirement |
| Bail in UAPA Cases | Liberal, rights-focused | Strict, focused on state interest |
These decisions reflect a shift from a rights-based liberal approach to a more realist, sovereignty-focused interpretation of law.
🇮🇳 Conclusion: Is the Judiciary Recalibrating?
Where Chandrachud’s leadership championed individual rights and judicial activism, Gavai’s era appears grounded in constitutional restraint and national interest. This shift aligns with a significant section of Indian society that supports strong governance, cultural continuity, and rule of law over ideology.
Is this just a difference in interpretation? Or is it the beginning of a new judicial philosophy where nationhood and order take precedence over ideological idealism?
