Institute of Legal and Management Studies

Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, on Thursday delivered the keynote address at the Fifth “Wisdom for Future” Talk Series hosted by the Jigme Singye Wangchuck School of Law at the Royal Institute of Management Convention Hall, Thimphu, Bhutan. Speaking on the theme “Courts and Constitutional Governance,” Justice Gavai underlined that the basic structure doctrine, one of the cornerstones of Indian constitutional law, has acquired global significance by inspiring jurisdictions across the world to reinforce democratic resilience and constitutional supremacy.

“The significance of the basic structure doctrine extends far beyond India's borders. Jurisdictions across the world have drawn inspiration from this principle, using it to reinforce constitutional supremacy and to guard against the dilution of core democratic values,” the Chief Justice said, addressing an audience that included Her Royal Highness Princess Sonam Dechan Wangchuck, President of the JSW School of Law, Chief Justice Norbu Tshering of Bhutan's Supreme Court, judges, scholars, and students.

A Shared Constitutional Heritage Between India and Bhutan

CJI Gavai began his address by expressing gratitude for Bhutan's warmth and hospitality, describing the Himalayan nation as a symbol of harmony between “tradition and modernity, progress and peace.” He remarked that Bhutan's societal model, which values balance and compassion, provides “a living lesson in what an ideal civilization could be.”

Recalling the shared philosophical roots of India and Bhutan, he observed that both nations derive strength from the teachings of Lord Buddha, whose message of compassion and balance continues to shape their moral and constitutional ethos. “Our relationship is beyond borders and centuries,” he said. “It is nurtured by a common civilizational spirit, founded on mutual trust, goodwill, and a shared vision of progress.”

He noted that the India–Bhutan partnership extends well beyond economics to education, culture, energy, and technology, strengthened by people-to-people ties and shared democratic aspirations. “It is therefore appropriate that our two judiciaries engage in a dialogue on constitutional governance,” he remarked.

Judiciary as the Moral Conscience of the Constitution

Justice Gavai said that courts are not merely dispute resolution bodies but essential pillars of constitutional governance. “The judiciary stands as both a guardian and a moral conscience of the Constitution. Its role goes beyond interpretation; it embodies the living spirit of constitutionalism by maintaining the delicate balance among the organs of the State,” he said.

He emphasized that the strength of constitutional governance depends not only on the text of the law but also on “the integrity, independence, and wisdom of the institutions that uphold it.” Courts, he said, must interpret the Constitution in a way that gives life to its ideals of justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity, placing the citizen at the center of the democratic framework.

The Basic Structure Doctrine: India's Contribution to Global Constitutionalism

Justice Gavai devoted a large portion of his lecture to explaining the basic structure doctrine, calling it a defining contribution of Indian constitutional thought. Tracing its evolution from the landmark Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) judgment, he recalled how the Supreme Court held that Parliament could amend the Constitution but not alter its essential features, such as the rule of law, separation of powers, judicial independence, and the supremacy of the Constitution.

“The judgment was a turning point in India's constitutional journey,” he said. “It recognized that while the Constitution must adapt to changing times, it cannot lose its soul.”

Justice Gavai also cited the 2015 judgment striking down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, which sought to give the executive a dominant role in judicial appointments. The Court had held that such a change would compromise judicial independence and thus violate the Constitution's basic structure. “The decision reaffirmed that judicial autonomy is intrinsic to the preservation of the Constitution's spirit,” he said.

He noted that the doctrine has since influenced constitutional courts worldwide, reinforcing democratic safeguards against authoritarian impulses.

Balancing Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles

The Chief Justice highlighted how India's judiciary has harmonized the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy, describing both as “expressions of the Constitution's moral and social philosophy.” Referring to the Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) judgment, he said the Supreme Court held that neither Fundamental Rights nor Directive Principles are superior to the other. Instead, they must be read together to achieve both individual liberty and social justice.

“This delicate balance between rights and responsibilities ensures that democracy remains both free and fair, compassionate and just,” he said.

Justice Gavai also cited the Right to Privacy judgment (2017) as an example of this balance, noting that while the State may pursue welfare objectives, it cannot do so by trampling on individual freedoms.

Article 21 and the Living Constitution

Justice Gavai described Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, guaranteeing the right to life and personal liberty,as a vivid example of the Constitution's adaptability. Initially interpreted narrowly in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950), Article 21 was later expanded in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) to require that any “procedure established by law” be fair, just, and reasonable.

Over the years, the Supreme Court has recognized a wide spectrum of rights under Article 21, including the rights to education, health, shelter, clean environment, privacy, protest, and even protection from the adverse impacts of climate change.

“These decisions reflect the judiciary's understanding that life and liberty are not confined to survival but include the right to live with dignity,” he said. “They demonstrate how constitutional interpretation can evolve to meet contemporary needs.”

Public Interest Litigation: Justice for the Voiceless

Justice Gavai highlighted India's innovation of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) as a transformative tool for access to justice. By liberalizing procedural rules in the 1980s, the Supreme Court allowed any concerned citizen to approach it on behalf of those whose rights were being violated.

He cited M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) on environmental protection and Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984) on bonded labour as examples of how PILs empowered the marginalized. He also referred to the Court's interventions in electoral reforms, such as mandating disclosure of candidates' criminal backgrounds, introducing the None of the Above (NOTA) option, and striking down the electoral bonds scheme to ensure transparency in political funding.

“Public Interest Litigation transformed the judiciary into a voice for those who lacked representation, reaffirming that justice must be accessible to all,” he said.

Equality, Non-Discrimination, and Gender Justice

Justice Gavai also discussed landmark rulings that advanced equality and non-discrimination, such as Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), which laid down guidelines against workplace harassment, and Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India (2008), which struck down gender-discriminatory employment laws.

He cited more recent cases such as Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya (2020) and Lt. Col. Nitisha v. Union of India (2021), where the Supreme Court upheld women's right to permanent commissions in the armed forces, as well as Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India (2024), which outlawed caste-based discrimination in prison labour. “Equality is not only about removing explicit barriers but dismantling systemic ones that perpetuate disadvantage,” he said.

Comparative Constitutionalism and Bhutan's Example

Justice Gavai praised Bhutan's Constitution for its deep moral grounding, particularly its emphasis on Gross National Happiness, which he described as a “constitutional vocabulary that marries justice with joy, rights with responsibilities, and liberty with collective flourishing.”

He said Bhutan's explicit constitutional guarantees,such as the right to equality, due process, and humane treatment,resonate closely with the values that have guided Indian constitutional interpretation. “Our two countries share the belief that dignity is inviolable and that justice is a shared human pursuit,” he observed.

Judiciary's Enduring Duty: Public Trust and Constitutional Literacy

In conclusion, Justice Gavai emphasized that the judiciary's legitimacy ultimately rests on public trust, not coercive power. “Public trust is the judiciary's most valuable asset. It transforms judicial decisions from mere legal orders into instruments of social conscience,” he said.

He urged judges to see themselves not only as arbiters but also as educators of constitutional consciousness. “Each judgment is a lesson in democracy, shaping how citizens understand their rights and responsibilities,” he said.

Expressing gratitude to Her Royal Highness Princess Sonam Dechan Wangchuck for her gracious leadership, Justice Gavai called for deeper cooperation between the Indian and Bhutanese judiciaries. “We share not only geographical proximity but a common commitment to justice, dignity, and compassion. Our partnership will continue to strengthen constitutionalism in our region,” he said.

The Chief Justice concluded his keynote with a warm message in Bhutanese: “Kadrinchey la”—Thank you.

Chief Justice of India BR Gavai visits the Supreme Court of Bhutan, meets the Chief Justice of Bhutan Lyonpo Norbu Tshering.

CJI Gavai also delivers a keynote address at the Fifth “Wisdom for Future” Talk Series, hosted by the Jigme Singye Wangchuck School of Law, at the Royal… pic.twitter.com/IDH0Yr9V4t