Supreme Court Revives Original Logo, Removes Glass Partitions Under CJI Gavai

CJI Gavai announced the changes at Justice Abhay S. Oka’s valedictory event, stating the court was returning to its "original avatar." The legal community has largely welcomed the moves as steps toward restoring the court’s identity and accessibility. No official response has come from prior leadership, but the Bar has praised the changes as a prudent correction, reflecting the need for institutions like the Supreme Court to stay rooted in Supreme Court Revives First Logo, Eliminates Glass Partitions Under CJI Gavai

The Supreme Court has reversed two recent decisions under Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, reviving its first emblem and eliminating the glass partitions that were put in place in its corridors. The glass panels were installed in the last administration for centralized air-conditioning. But they drew flak from lawyers and employees, who complained that the new configuration made the old building inaccessible and broke up the natural flow of movement and air. Several members of the legal fraternity, including the SCBA and the Advocates-on-Record Association, had expressed dismay earlier, terming the glass buildings as unnecessary and ill-conceived. They also indicated that the decision to build them had been made without sufficient consultation.

CJI Gavai ratified the removal at the valedictory event of Justice Abhay S. Oka. In brief remarks, he averred that the court was going back to its "original avatar," words that were noticed but were consistent with silent demands from within the court. The classic logo has also been restored, over a variation that had been seen in recent years. Despite what may at first glance appear to be symbolic changes, they've been greeted by many as a move towards the rebuilding of the court's identity and accessibility.

As yet, there has been no official reaction from the earlier leadership. However, initial responses within the Bar have been very positive, with some terming the action a prudent correction. It's not only about design. To many in the legal community, these changes represent a larger concept that institutions such as the Supreme Court ought to remain grounded in their origins, particularly in an era in which change is often quickest and most top-down.