B.M. Trivedi

Early Life

Justice Bela Trivedi was born on 10 June 1960, in Patan, Gujarat. Justice Trivedi received her schooling at various places as her family moved frequently due to her fathers work in the judicial service. She graduated in B.Com LLB from the Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda, Vadodara. 

Career as an Advocate

In 1983, Justice Trivedi enrolled at the Gujarat Bar and began her career as an advocate specialising in civil and constitutional law for nearly ten years. 

Career as a Judge

On 10 July 1995, Justice Trivedi was appointed as a Judge at the City Civil and Sessions Court in Ahmedabad. Coincidentally, her father was also serving as a judge at the same court at the time of her appointment. In its 1996 edition, the Limca Book of Records, an annual reference book documenting world records by Indians, featured Justice Trivedi and her father as “father-daughter judges in the same court.”

While serving as a judicial officer, Justice Trivedi was appointed as the Registrar-Vigilance in the Gujarat High Court. She served as the law secretary to the Gujarat government between 2004 to 2006. 

She also served as a Central Bureau of Investigation Court judge. Further, she was a special judge in the 2008 Ahmedabad serial bomb blast matters. 21 bomb blasts were coordinated across Ahmedabad killing 56 people. The blasts were an apparent retaliation to the 2002 communal violence in Gujarat.

On 17 February 2011, Justice Trivedi was elevated as a Judge of the Gujarat High Court. In June that year, she was transferred to the Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court. In February 2013, she was confirmed as a permanent judge of the Rajasthan High Court. In February 2016, she was repatriated to the Gujarat High Court.

On 31 August 2021, Justice Trivedi was elevated as a judge of the Supreme Court. She was appointed alongside Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Hima Kohli, making this the first time that three women judges were simultaneously elevated to the top court. By seniority, Justice Trivedi is only the eleventh woman judge in the Supreme Court’s history.

On 4 January 2023, Justice Trivedi recused herself from hearing petitions challenging the Gujarat government’s decision to prematurely release 11 convicts serving life imprisonment for the gangrape and assault on Bilkis Bano and the murder of her family in 2002.

At the Supreme Court she attracted some controversy after Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave and Advocate Prashant Bhushan wrote letters to Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and the registry, respectively, for alleged “arbitrary” allotment of politically sensitive cases to benches led by her. 

Justice Trivedi will retire on 9 June 2025 after a tenure of 3.75 years. 

Tenure at the Supreme Court in Numbers

Justice Trivedi has authored 79 judgements, and has been a part of 238 benches.

Justice Trivedi majorly authored her judgements in criminal matters (38%), followed by service (11%), consumer and civil (8% each), and constitutional matters (5%).

Notable Judgements

In Attorney General for India v Satish (2021), Justice Trivedi was part of the three-judge Bench led by former Chief Justice U.U. Lalit, which reversed the Bombay High Court’s decision which held that ‘skin-to-skin’ contact was necessary to constitute sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO’). The Bench held that adopting a narrow definition of ‘skin’ and ‘touch’ under Section 7 of the POCSO Act would lead to “an absurd interpretation of the provision” as different forms of physical assault upon the victim made through any instruments would fall out of POCSO’s scope.

In Janhit Abhiyan v Union of India (2022), Justice Trivedi authored a concurring opinion upholding the 10 per cent reservations for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS). The Bench, by a 3:2 majority, upheld the 103rd Constitutional Amendment which led to EWS reservations. Justice Trivedi noted that economic criteria for reservations is constitutionally valid, and that persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes persons can be excluded from its ambit. She stated that economic backwardness is a disadvantage in itself, clarifying: “‘Just as equals cannot be treated unequally, unequals cannot be treated equally.” She observed that EWS reservations do not breach the 50 percent ceiling limit on reservations set out in Indra Sawhney (1992), as it only applied to socially and educationally backward classes.

In State of Maharashtra v Mahesh Kariman Tirki (2022), a Division Bench of Justices M.R. Shah and Trivedi, in a special Saturday hearing, suspended the Bombay High Court’s order granting release to Prof. G.N. Saibaba. Saibaba was a 90 percent disabled former teacher, who was charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The order noted that the High Court’s decision had solely harped on one procedural error and missed to assess the merits of the case. The decision was widely criticised due to the circumstances leading to the special Saturday hearing, and the reasoning used by the bench to stay the release. Prof. Saibaba was acquitted by the Bombay High Court in March 2024.

In State of Punjab v Davinder Singh (2024), Justice Trivedi delivered the sole dissenting opinion in the seven-judge Constitution Bench that upheld sub-classification within SC and ST communities for reservations. She noted that the etymological history of the term “Scheduled Caste” made it clear that the SC community formed a “homogenous class”. She further held that Indra Sawhney was only concerned with the ambit of backward classes under Article 16(4), and hence recognised sub-classification only within OBCs, and not SCs or STs. She also noted that the Presidential List notified under Article 341 was final, and state governments could not modify the list by giving preferential treatment to certain sub-classified groups over others. She noted that even though sub-classification would not amount to inclusion or exclusion from the Presidential List, it would amount to “tinkering” of the list.