Justice Bhushan Ramakrishna Gavai will serve as Chief Justice of India (CJI) from May 14, 2025 to November 23, 2025, a brief tenure. Justice Sanjiv Khanna held office from November 11, 2024 to May 13, 2025, a lesser tenure..Among the next eight Chief Justices, Justice BV Nagarathna is likely to have a 36-day tenure as CJI. Earlier, Justice UU Lalit was CJI for just about 74 days. The common theme running through these tenures is their length under our Constitution, lending little or no scope for any of them to make a mark at the helm..It is a troubling issue and it is time we bestowed attention to it. The CJI occupies a pivotal position. He may be first among equals, as is commonly alluded to, but he is the head of the entire judicial firmament. He leads the way, to introduce and implement many an impactful change. For instance, Justice DY Chandrachud was in office from November 9, 2022 to November 10, 2024, two years to a day. On the technology front, he had time to take the judiciary into digital mode in a meaningful way. He headed multiple Constitution Benches on issues of huge public importance. It does suggest that it may be time to consider at least a minimal two-year fixed tenure for our Chief Justice of India..To the discerning, it may be a huge surprise that our fathers and mothers of the Constitution had little or nothing to debate on this critical faculty of ‘fixed tenure’. The framing of the Indian Constitution involved deep deliberation on the structure and powers of the judiciary. The Constituent Assembly of India, which sat between 1946 and 1950, debated in detail the role of the Supreme Court and the office of the CJI. However, one notable feature of the debates is the absence of a direct discussion on fixing a specific tenure for the Chief Justice. Instead, the Assembly focused more broadly on principles of independence, impartiality and the structure of judicial appointments and retirement.The Constituent Assembly, particularly through the Drafting Committee chaired by Dr BR Ambedkar, emphasised that the judiciary must be independent of the executive and legislature. To this end, Article 124 of the Constitution was carefully crafted to provide security of tenure, a fixed retirement age (65 years) and protection against arbitrary removal. However, the method of appointing the Chief Justice - by convention of seniority rather than a fixed term - was left undefined in the Constitution and left to executive discretion..Unlike other aspects of judicial functioning, the Assembly did not engage in a specific debate on whether the Chief Justice should have a fixed tenure. This was likely due to the presumption that the senior-most judge would become the CJI and serve until retirement. At the time, the idea of short tenures caused by late appointments or advanced age at the time of elevation may not have appeared as problematic as it does today.Dr Ambedkar and other members prioritised the independence of judges and the need to insulate the judiciary from political interference. However, the conversation never extended to concerns about continuity of leadership at the apex of the judiciary, perhaps because the early CJIs, including Justice HJ Kania and Justice Patanjali Sastri, had relatively longer terms in office.There was a fear that any rigid structuring of tenure might politicise the appointment process or create a power struggle within the judiciary. Therefore, flexibility was preferred — which in practice translated into the seniority convention that continues to date..While the Constituent Assembly did not foresee the challenges of multiple CJIs with very short tenures, modern legal experts and jurists have increasingly argued that this structural issue needs review. In recent years, several Chief Justices have had tenures of less than a year, limiting their capacity for institutional reform or long-term.The CJI plays a pivotal role in maintaining the integrity, independence and efficiency of the Indian judiciary. A fixed tenure - of perhaps three to five years - would bring greater stability to the position. It would allow the CJI sufficient time to plan and execute judicial reforms effectively.Longer tenures would also encourage Chief Justices to take ownership of the judiciary’s performance, leading to stronger institutional accountability. Moreover, fixed terms would enable the development of a clear judicial agenda, including improved case management systems, training of judges etc..Many democracies across the world adopt systems that ensure a longer and more stable tenure for their top judicial officers. For example, the Chief Justice of the United States is appointed for life, allowing them to shape judicial policy over decades. While India may not require lifetime appointments, a fixed term would align more closely with international best practices.The need for a fixed tenure for the Chief Justice of India is rooted in the desire for a more stable, efficient and visionary judiciary. Short tenures limit the ability of CJIs to enact meaningful change, and a system that allows for extended leadership would benefit both the judiciary and the citizens who depend on it. As India aspires to strengthen its democratic institutions, reforming the tenure of the Chief Justice is a crucial step toward a more effective and credible justice system..Would this series of short tenures of our Chief Justices of India draw the attention of our Parliamentarians to the dire need for a fixed tenure regime for our CJIs?.Narasimhan Vijayaraghavan is a practicing advocate in the Madras High Court.
