Illustration by Soham Sen | ThePrint
Illustration by Soham Sen | ThePrint
Text Size:

Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi will retire on 17 November after an eventful stint of 13 months. He was one of the four dissenting Supreme Court judges in the historic January 2018 press conference. During his tenure, CJI Gogoi delivered landmark verdicts like those on Ayodhya, the RTI jurisdiction, Assam’s NRC, Rafale deal.

ThePrint asks: How will CJI Ranjan Gogoi’s legacy impact the Supreme Court?


Disappointing that as dissenting judge of January 2018, CJI Gogoi continued same practices in his term

Alok Prasanna
Senior resident fellow at Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy

CJI Ranjan Gogoi’s term in the Supreme Court has further declined the top court’s credibility.

Three significant examples illustrate this point. The first was the sexual harassment case against him by a Supreme Court staffer; the case was buried without following any proper procedure. The second major instance of his failure was in the context of the appointments made to the Supreme Court and the high courts where it seemed that the collegium was simply refusing to stand up to the central government and effectively giving the Modi government a veto over the appointments process. Controversies relating to the transfer of Justice Akil Kureshi of the Gujarat High Court and Justice V.K. Tahilramani of the Madras High Court only showed the CJI Gogoi-led collegium in poor light. The third instance relates to the impression created that all sensitive matters in the Supreme Court concerning the central government will only be heard by a bench involving Justice Arun Mishra.

Ironically, this was precisely the reason why then-Supreme Court judge Gogoi and three of his colleagues had held a press conference in January 2018, and it has been most disappointing to see that CJI Gogoi continued to undertake the same practices that brought disrepute to the Supreme Court.

The NRC and the Ayodhya verdicts and the extraordinary delays in hearing important cases such as the electoral bonds and Article 370 have all contributed to the loss of credibility of the Supreme Court.


CJI Ranjan Gogoi did a commendable job in all controversial cases that he gave judgments on

Justice B.S. Chauhan
Former chairman of Law Commission of India and former judge of Supreme Court

The judgments delivered by the judge are what leave an impact, and not the person who gave them. This is true for Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi as well.

It will take some time for people to realise the impact of his judgments. The decision delivered on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case was remarkable. To convince everyone on the bench for a unanimous verdict on a decades-old and controversial case was an extremely difficult task and CJI Gogoi achieved that feat.

He did a commendable job in all controversial cases that he gave judgments on or referred to another court. It will take time to see how some of these judgments will be accepted, and we must certainly give them that time. How people have accepted his judgments, how many people file reviews and how many review petitions are accepted — all these factors will be telling of the impact of his judgments.

It is too early to assess the impact of CJI Ranjan Gogoi’s legacy on the judiciary at this time.


Also read: Judicial independence, motive & purpose, surveillance — how SC argues for and against RTI


CJI Gogoi has done nothing positive to further interests of judiciary or raise Supreme Court’s stature

R.S. Sodhi
Former judge, Delhi HC

CJI Ranjan Gogoi’s term in the Supreme Court has been extremely checkered. He is the first rebel Supreme Court justice we have had anywhere in the world. No one would have become a chief justice after rebelling against his own system.

Throughout his career, he hasn’t earned highly respectable points, and has been a highly controversial figure. In the last three days of his journey as the Chief Justice of India, he seems to have gained popularity for bringing closure to the Ayodhya land title dispute and the case of CJI’s office under the RTI jurisdiction. He will hold on to these landmark judgments, taking credit for resolving these issues once and for all.

This is the only imprint that is likely to contribute positively to his general public image; otherwise, his image as the CJI and as a Supreme Court judge is just appalling.

However, it is important to note that people have very short memories, they are likely to forget his past and glorify his present. Otherwise, to my mind, he has done nothing positive to further the interests of the judiciary or raise the stature of the Supreme Court as such.


CJI Gogoi’s term created trend of sealed cover litigation, which lawyers are using as tactic to hide details

Debayan Roy
Legal Correspondent, ThePrint

CJI Ranjan Gogoi’s tenure led to the evolution of what is now termed as the “sealed cover” litigation. The doctrine essentially meant that any information that the counsel of party deems as “secret” and not fit to share with other parties, could be submitted to the judges in a sealed cover. It also meant that any reliance on such documents would not be revealed in court verdicts too.

However, this was subject to only orders by the court. But ever since CJI Gogoi started this practice from Assam’s NRC case, there have been numerous cases where sealed covers are submitted even when the judges do not ask for it. This essentially shows that this sealed cover doctrine has now metamorphosed into a tactic by lawyers to keep information away from the public and the opposing counsels.

Another change has been the nature of the Supreme Court’s authority in collegium appointments. Whether it is the case of Justice Vikram Nath or Justice Akil Kureshi, there have been instances under CJI Gogoi where the collegium had to accept the central government’s recommendations without any reiteration. This only sets the stage for further executive interference in judicial appointments.

However, the way CJI Gogoi directed subordinate courts to fill vacancies and restricted urgent mentions in court to only important matters will only help the court in reducing case pendencies in the long run.


Also read: How Supreme Court bench on Sabarimala review differs on faith and law


By Taran Deol, journalist at ThePrint

Subscribe to our channels on YouTube & Telegram

Why news media is in crisis & How you can fix it

India needs free, fair, non-hyphenated and questioning journalism even more as it faces multiple crises.

But the news media is in a crisis of its own. There have been brutal layoffs and pay-cuts. The best of journalism is shrinking, yielding to crude prime-time spectacle.

ThePrint has the finest young reporters, columnists and editors working for it. Sustaining journalism of this quality needs smart and thinking people like you to pay for it. Whether you live in India or overseas, you can do it here.

Support Our Journalism

9 Comments Share Your Views

9 COMMENTS

  1. Congress need not worry about ideology. The people who hate BJPs divisive politics will naturally vote for Congress and it’s allies. Congress should form the government in Maharashtra to go one up to boost much needed anti-bjp energy. Moreover it is siva sena who came with the begging bowl and Congress-NCP are calling the shots.
    Pre-2G Sonia ji is back !!!

  2. From my side, his legacy will be dark part of the history of Supreme Court… Most notably how he hoodwinked the very own judiciary to escape allegations of sexual harassment on self. Now coming to Ayodhya verdict, I am not a fan any religion but fan constitution of India, which he failed to uphold not in this case but inmany cases….

  3. Overall, he was a good CJI. Kudos for closing the vexed Babri-Ram Janmabhoomi issue for ever. No predecessor had shown such a keen interest. There will be views and counter views. But undeniably closure has happened. The credit goes to the CJI.

    • His name will be written in golden letter like another Lachit Borphukan, he is also a Brave Hindu who who gave straight forward decisions without any cheap politics.

  4. This fellow will be remembered as the man who made a mockery of justice over the Babri Masjid case.
    Made in favour of political expediency and to close the issue instead of justice.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here