Cji br gavai on constitution: Chief Justice BR Gawai said on Wednesday (25 June 2025) that the Constitution of India is supreme and all three organs of democracy work under the Constitution. He said that some people say that Parliament is supreme, but in his opinion the Constitution is paramount. Justice Gawai, who took oath as the 52nd Chief Justice last month, was speaking at his reception in Amravati, his hometown in Amravati, East Maharashtra.

He said that there is always a discussion on which part of democracy is supreme – executive, legislature or judiciary. He said, “Although many people say and believe that Parliament is supreme, but according to me the Constitution of India is supreme. All three organs of democracy work under the Constitution. ”

‘Parliament has the power to amend’- CJI BI Gawai

Referring to the decision passed by the Supreme Court on the basis of the principle of ‘original structure’, Chief Justice Gavai said that Parliament has the power to amend, but it cannot change the original structure of the Constitution. He said that just by passing the order against the government, no judge becomes independent. He said, “The judge should always remember that it is our duty and we are the patron of the rights and constitutional values ​​and principles of the citizens. We do not only have power, but we have also been put on duty.

What will people say? In what relation did CJI say this

The Chief Justice said that no judge should be directed by what people will say about their decision or what they will feel. He said, “We have to think independently. What people will say, it cannot be a part of our decision making process. During his address, the Chief Justice cited some of his decisions. Referring to his decision against ‘bulldozer justice’, he said that the right to shelter is supreme.

Supreme Court on Law Student: The Supreme Court said on Tuesday that the youth cannot appear in the judicial service examination i.e. Judicial Service Examination as soon as it is Bachelor of Law and it is mandatory for candidates applying for admission level posts to advocate minimum three years. This decision will have far -reaching impact on the candidates of judicial service.

Minimum three years advocacy mandatory

A bench of Principal Justice BR Gawai and Justice Augustine George Christ reiterated the importance of court experience for future Justices. Principal Justice, while giving the verdict, said, “The appointment of new Bachelor of Law has led to many difficulties, as many High Courts have said. Practical experience in the court is necessary to ensure judicial efficiency and capacity. ”The bench said that the minimum three -year advocacy is mandatory for the posts of the lower class cadre to appear in the Judicial Services Examination for the posts of Civil Justice.

Waiting for detailed decisions right now

This decision came on a petition filed by the All India Justice Association. Principal Justice said that practical challenges have arisen by allowing the new Bachelor of Law to directly enter the judiciary, as reflected in the reports submitted by various High Courts. Waiting for detailed decisions.

Apart from this, the work time done as a law clerk for judges will also be added. Also, after the judge is elected, he will have to undergo one year training before hearing in the court. The requirement of minimum practice will not be applicable, where the High Court has already started the appointment process of Civil Judge Junior Division. Along with this, such recruitment procedures, which were postponed due to pending this case, will now be according to the revised rules.

Also read –

BJP leader told Rahul Gandhi ‘Mir Jafar’, said- ‘Mark-e-Pakistan’

Education loan information:
Calculate Education Loan Emi

Supreme Court on Child Custody: The Supreme Court said on Tuesday that their welfare is “paramount” in the legal battle between the couple living separately over the custody of the children. A bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Sandeep Mehta said, “In cases of children’s custody, the welfare of the child should be considered as paramount. The excessive honesty, love and affection shown by any one of the parents cannot be the basis for determining the protection of the child in itself. ”

The Supreme Court made this comment in the judgment in which the order of 11 December 2014 of the Kerala High Court has been rejected. The High Court had given the interim protection of two children to the father for 15 days every month, but the Supreme Court described this system as “unmatched” and “harmful” for the welfare of children.

Couple married in 2014

This decision came on the appeal of the mother of the children, who challenged the interim custody order of the High Court in favor of the separate husband. Children’s mother is a software engineer, while father is a general manager in a construction company in Singapore. The couple married in 2014 and have two children. His daughter was born in 2016, while the son was born in 2022.

The couple were living separately since 2017 after a rift among themselves, although their second child was born in 2021 after a brief reconciliation. The father of the children knocked on the door of a family court in Thiruvananthapuram in June 2024 and requested to provide permanent custody of the children under the Conservator and Advice Act. The family court gave the father a limited meeting rights, including monthly personal meeting and weekly video calls.

The High Court gave the father a 15 -day custody every month

The High Court amended the custody system and allowed the father to have a 15 -day custody every month, provided that he should keep a flat on rent in Thiruvananthapuram and make arrangements for transport for children.

The High Court also provided video call facility to parents, when the child will be in the protection of another. However, dismissing the order, Supreme Court Judge Justice Mehta wrote a verdict for the bench, saying, “The interim system is neither viable nor favorable for mental and physical welfare of children.”

The Supreme Court said a big thing

The Supreme Court said that this system failed to consider the need for children’s development requirements, especially nutrition and emotional security. The court said, “However, at the same time we cannot ignore the fact that the defendant is a affectionate father who has shown his deep desire to play the role of equally and guardian in the upbringing of his children.” In this way, it is neither acceptable nor justified to completely deprive him of the care of children and it can destroy all the possibilities of family engagement. ”

Also read-

Pahalgam Terror Attack: How did the terrorist attack take place in Pahalgam? Who got the call first, know everything