On his last two working days as a Supreme Court judge, Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai headed two Constitution Benches that pronounced verdicts in important cases.

The first verdict - passed on November 19 - dealt with seniority between district judges (direct recruits) and district judges (promotees).

The second, and perhaps more significant judgment, answered a Presidential reference on whether the Supreme Court can fix timelines within which Governors are required to act on bills.

The two verdicts, albeit on different issues, have one thing in common: they have no author.

The first judgment was pronounced by a Bench of CJI Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, K Vinod Chandran and Joymalya Bagchi.

The Presidential reference was answered by a Bench of CJI Gavai and Justices Kant, Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar.

After pronouncing the latter verdict, CJI Gavai mentioned in court,

"The judgment will go in the name of the Court...it is unanimous and it is a voice of the Court."

It is rare for a judgment to not disclose authorship.

In 2019, the Ayodhya judgment - in which a Supreme Court Bench led by then-CJI Ranjan Gogoi held in favour of the Hindu parties - did not have an author. However, it was widely speculated that Justice DY Chandrachud authored that judgment.

Although the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 do not say anything on whether a judgment must have an author, it is general practice for judges to disclose authorship.