I didn't change a word even after reading criticism by dissenting judge: CJI BR Gavai in retrospective EC case

Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai on Monday said that he did not revise his draft judgment in the retrospective environmental-clearance case after reading the dissenting opinion of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.

CJI Gavai said he did not do so though there is an earlier precedent of judges revising their final drafts after reading dissenting judgments of the brother judges on the bench.

There was a recent instance when former CJI DY Chandrachud had allegedly edited out certain lines in his judgment on the interpretation of "material resources of the community" under Article 39(b).

CJI Chandrachud had done so after reading Justice BV Nagarathna's dissent in which she had questioned then CJI for accusing the judges of yesteryears of doing "a disservice to the Constitution" in his judgment.

The line - "the Krishna Iyer doctrine does a disservice to the broad and flexible spirit of the Constitution" - was found missing from CJI Chandrachud's judgment when it was made public.

Today, CJI Gavai referred to such precedents without taking any names, when he revealed that Justice Bhuyan had criticized his majority judgment.

"Though my judgment has been criticised in the second judgment ... though there has been a precedent in this very courtroom of either writing a rejoinder or correcting the earlier judgment so as to meet the challenges on following the judicial discipline, judicial decency and judicial decorum, I have not changed a single word in my judgment," CJI Gavai said.

In a majority decision, the Supreme Court today recalled an earlier judgment in which a two-judge bench had quashed a notification and an Office Memorandum on grant of ex post facto Environmental Clearance (EC) to building and construction projects.

While CJI Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran allowed the review plea that had challenged the earlier decision, Justice Bhuyan wrote a dissenting view

Justice Bhuyan said that the Supreme Court cannot be seen backtracking on the sound environmental jurisprudence of that has evolved in the country, that too, on a review petition filed by persons who have shown scant regard for the rule of law.

"The review judgment is an innocent expression of opinion. It overlooks the very fundamentals of environmental jurisprudence. Precautionary principle is the cornerstone of environmental jurisprudence. Polluter pays is only a principle of reparation. Precautionary principle cannot be given a short shrift by relying on polluter pays principle. The review judgment is a step in retrogression," Justice Bhuyan said about CJI Gavai's view.

[Read Judgment]