Spotlight this week: Justice JB Pardiwala

Spotlight is a series where we shine the, well, spotlight on members of the legal fraternity who made the news over the past week..The spotlight was on Justice JB Pardiwala and the Supreme Court of India this week following a landmark judgment, inviting both criticism and high praise from jurists and netas on both sides of the political spectrum. .A two-judge bench headed by Justice Pardiwala and also comprising Justice R Mahadevan delineated the powers of the President and the Governors over the laws passed by state legislatures. The verdict irked Vice President of India Jagdeep Dhankar and others close to the ruling dispensation at the Centre, but was hailed as historic by Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin, whose government had approached the top court against Governor RN Ravi’s decision to keep ten bills pending for unduly long periods..The ruling laid down a specific timeline for the Governors to act on bills sent to them for their assent. The Court also defined the contours of the President of India’s powers when a bill passed by a state legislature is reserved by the Governor for the consideration of the President. It said that the President’s decision in such cases is subject to judicial review, and they must make a decision on the bill within three months or convey the reasons to the concerned state. The apex court added that where a bill has been reserved because it involves questions of Constitutional validity, it is the judiciary which will decide its validity and such laws should, as a matter of practice, be referred to the Supreme Court under Article 143 of the Constitution. Ultimately, the Court used its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and declared the 10 bills to have been assented to by the Tamil Nadu Governor. .Vice-President Dhankar was not too pleased with the Court's ruling. He said that the judiciary was acting as a “super-parliament” without any accountability. "There is a directive to the President by a recent judgment. Where are we heading? What is happening in the country? We have to be extremely sensitive. It is not a question of someone filing a review or not. We never bargained for democracy for this day. President being called upon to decide in a time-bound manner and if not, it becomes law. So we have judges who will legislate, who will perform executive functions, who will act as super Parliament and absolutely have no accountability because law of the land does not apply to them," he said. He also called Article 142 a nuclear missile against “democratic forces”. "[It] has become a nuclear missile against democratic forces, available to the judiciary 24x7," he stated. .On the other hand, the Tamil Nadu government and many opposition leaders hailed the verdict, calling it historic and a “golden day in the history of India”. Chief Minister Stalin said the judgment is a huge victory for all states in India and a vindication of federalism, state autonomy and Dravidian politics. Tamil Nadu’s Minister for Information Technology and Digital Services Palanivel Thiagarajan said that judgments like these refine the constitutional interpretations and “remove a lacuna in the procedural implementation of the Constitution, which has been exploited unscrupulously in the past”.The Court in its judgment lamented the "scant respect shown by the Governor" to an earlier decision of the Court on Governor's delaying assent to bills. It also laid out the role the Governor is expected to play, especially in states which are ruled by opposition parties."He must perform his role of a friend, philosopher and guide with dispassion, guided not by considerations of political expediency but by the sanctity of the constitutional oath he undertakes.".This is not the first time Justice Pardiwala, a future Chief Justice of India (CJI), has been in the news. His legal journey is defined by consequential judgments that had political ramifications. We examine the legal milestones and contentious episodes that have shaped his ascent in the Indian judiciary..Justice Jamshed Burjor Pardiwala was born on August 12, 1965, in a well-known family of legal professionals from Gujarat’s Valsad. He is a fourth-generation lawyer. His great-grandfather, Navrojji Bhikhaji Pardiwala, began practising law in 1894 in Valsad. His grandfather Cawasji Navrojji Pardiwala joined the Bar in 1929 and practised till 1958. His father, Burjor Cawasji Pardiwala, joined the profession in 1955. He also served as the Speaker of the 7th Gujarat Legislative Assembly from December 1989 to March 1990. Like the previous generations of his family, Justice Pardiwala also started his legal journey in Valsad in 1989. However, he moved to the Gujarat High Court the next year. .In 2011, he was appointed as an additional judge of the Gujarat High Court and became a permanent judge in 2013. He was then elevated to the Supreme Court on May 9, 2022, and is expected to become the Chief Justice of India (CJI) in May 2028. He will serve as CJI until August 2030, with a relatively long tenure of more than two years at the helm. .Punjab Governor's actionsThe April 8 judgement is not the first time Justice Pardiwala has been critical of Governors stalling the state legislatures. In November 2023, a bench of then CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra denounced Punjab Governor Banwarilal Purohit for casting a doubt on the special assembly session called by the Speaker of the house. Even then, the Court said that the Governor cannot be allowed to 'virtually veto' the functioning of the elected legislature by simply declaring that assent is withheld without any further recourse..Against Gujarat government for 2002 riotsIn February 2012, a Gujarat High Court bench consisting of Acting Chief Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya and Justice Pardiwala rapped the then State government headed by Narendra Modi for their inaction over the destruction of over 500 religious structures during the 2002 riots. .Views on reservationJustice Pardiwala was also part of a Constitution Bench that upheld the 103rd Amendment to the Constitution of India by a 3:2 majority. The law made provisions for reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) of society in education and government jobs. In his separate opinion, Justice Pardiwala reasoned that the words “weaker sections” used in Article 46 cannot be read to mean only the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes. Importantly, he also said that reservation/quotas cannot continue indefinitely.In his 117-page judgment, Justice Pardiwala held that development and the spread of education have resulted in tapering the gap between different classes to a considerable extent. The judge said that it is was necessary to review the method of identification and determination of backward classes, and to ascertain whether the criteria applied for such classification of backward classes is relevant in today’s scenario.Justice Pardiwala was of the view that the new concept of economic criteria introduced by the 103rd Amendment for affirmative action may go a long way in eradicating caste-based reservation..Justice Pardiwala had expressed similar views on reservation in the Patidar agitation led by Hardik Patel. Controversy erupted when Justice Pardiwala refused to quash the sedition case against Patel and other key Patidar agitation movement leaders. In his judgment, he called the reservation system an “amoeboid monster”, which, along with corruption, is responsible for the “destruction of the country”.These observations landed him in trouble in 2015 and an impeachment motion was filed against him in the Rajya Sabha. Interestingly, the same opposition parties who are now praising his judgment on Governors were the ones who had sought impeachment proceedings against him. As many as 58 Rajya Sabha Members of Parliament (MPs) filed an impeachment motion against him. The signatories included leaders of the Congress, DMK, BSP, JD (U), NCP, CPI, CPI (M) and others. The MPs said, "It is distressing that Justice JB Pardiwala should be unaware of the constitutional provision with respect to the policy for the SCs and the STs.”They added that his observations are unconstitutional in nature and amount to “behaviour misconduct towards the Constitution of India”, which is a ground for impeachment. However, the judge withdrew his remarks after the Gujarat government filed a motion before the High Court. “…paragraph 62 in the judgement was not relevant or necessary for the purpose of deciding the main matter, and in such circumstances, paragraph 62 may be deleted…,” he said. Soon, the controversy died down. .With a tenure of over five years remaining, Justice Pardiwala is certain to be at the centre of many more contentious issues. As a judge, and later as CJI, he is bound to play a big role in shaping the legal landscape and the future of the Supreme Court. It will be interesting how he navigates his role at a time when the judiciary has been criticised for not doing enough to quell executive excesses and parliamentary inequities.