Delivering remarks at his farewell ceremony, Gavai—only the second person from the Dalit community to hold the position—stressed that constitutional equality does not simply mean treating all equally, but rather ensuring those who remain at the margins are prioritised. He questioned whether a child of a senior bureaucrat attending a premier college should compete on equal footing with the offspring of an agricultural labourer educated in a rural school. That issue, he said, demands differential treatment if equality is to hold real meaning.
Gavai further underscored the need for sub-categorisation within SC/ST groups, urging both central and state governments to adopt finer classifications that ensure benefits reach the truly backward. His remarks come in the context of the judgment of a constitution-bench he led which enabled states to divide Scheduled Castes into sub-categories on the basis of socio-economic backwardness and under-representation in employment. The ruling, issued in August last year, tasked states with identifying those groups within SC communities that remain significantly underserved.
The Chief Justice drew attention to the trend of hate speech proliferating on social media, and warned that existing constitutional safeguards on free speech may not be sufficient to stem the flow of caste-based abuse. He suggested that Parliament should consider legislating specific mechanisms to check such speech which he called “weaponised” in public discourse. This aligns with his broader plea for stronger institutional commitment to social justice, including robust data collection, greater transparency in quota implementation and renewed focus on the fundamental principles of justice, liberty and fraternity.
His critique strikes at the heart of the reservation system’s current fault-lines: while the policy intended to uplift those historically excluded, an emerging chatter suggests that segments within SC/ST groups with greater access to education and resources are appropriating the benefits, leaving the intended beneficiaries with little. Gavai’s criticism echoes concerns heard from activists, who say that the absence of a “creamy-layer” exclusion for SC/STs—as already exists for Other Backward Classes—has enabled upwardly mobile individuals in these communities to utilise reservation safeguards that were originally designed for the most disadvantaged.
Gavai’s own journey from a small-town municipal school to the apex court underscores the arguments he advanced. He highlighted that the Constitution and his upbringing instilled in him the belief that public office is not power but service. He referenced his law clerk whose father held a senior bureaucratic post and who ultimately declared he would not accept SC benefits, remarking that it was “that young boy who understood what politicians fail to understand for reasons best known to them.”
His concern about the creeping “weaponisation” of caste comes against a backdrop of legal and political debates over how to ensure that reservation policies are continually attuned to ground realities. Critics of the existing model argue that a one-size-fits-all approach fails to account for disparity within mandated groups. Supporters of stricter exclusion thresholds argue that without rigour, the system risks being hijacked by those already in advantageous positions, thereby defeating its original egalitarian purpose.