Security forces arrest two Maoists in Odisha

Two Maoists, allegedly involved in the killing of a tribal man in Kalimela area of Malkangiri district two days ago, were arrested on Friday, a senior police officer said. The Maoists, aged around 25, were caught by security personnel from a forest near Sudhakunda, Malkangiri SP Jagmohan Meena said. Meena, who declined to disclose the identities, said the rebels were nabbed during a combing operation launched by security personnel in the forest area after the gunning down of Ganga Madkami on Wednesday.

Friday was the last day in office of a man who has become, arguably, India’s most controversial Supreme Court judge. Jasti Chelameswar, 64 (he turns 65 on Saturday, June 23), was the only judge to dissent when the Supreme Court scrapped the government’s National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) law, which replaced the older system of a collegium of judges appointing judges to the higher judiciary with a commission. He was also one of the four judges who, earlier this year, took on Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra for what they saw as inadequacies in the way he was administering the court and allocating cases. In an interview with Hindustan Times’s

Ashok Bagriya and Bhadra Sinha,

Chelameswar pulled no punches, and spoke of issues from nepotism, the chief justice’s office, and the role of the government. Edited excerpts:

You have been a judge for 21 years. June 22 is your last day as a judge. When you look back, how do you see your term as a judge and what cases have been close to you?

During the last 21 years, a lot of events took place and some of them did touch me, in the sense that I had to deal with the legal implications of those events as a judge. (The) NJAC case (did) for more than one reason — it will stay with me always — and its become a component of me as a judge. People will always refer to me as a dissenting judge. Apart from public perception, there is one important case that I dealt with — I had the opportunity to deal with the validity of a constitutional amendment (NJAC case ). I take pride in the fact that of the 240 judges in the Supreme Court since its inception, only 50 have dealt with an issue like this and I am one of them.

You will also be remembered because on January 12, you, along with three other top judges of the court, took an unprecedented step. You called a press conference; that has never happened in the history of Indian judiciary. What triggered the event?

There were a lot of things which, according to us, were not right in the Supreme Court and not in the interest of the people of this country. We made our attempts to set the things right according to our perception of what is wrong and what is right in that context. Since we concluded that we were not able to set the things right, we decide to inform the nation. We didn’t want anybody to blame us a decade or two later that these fellows did not discharge their duties. After the press conference, we became rebels and were even branded as a gang of four. The press conference was called extraordinary; yes, it was extraordinary. In retrospect also, I think what we did on January 12 was right.

Have things changed in the Supreme Court after the press conference?

There was an undertone in our press conference that consultative process in matters affecting the judiciary were not taking place and it is for the people to see and judge if things have changed after it or not.

Has the extraordinary press conference achieved the results that it intended?

The press conference has not achieved, in the complete sense, the result it should have, but it certainly has created awareness in this country that this institution is also required to be protected and its activities should be assessed periodically. That awareness is certainly there today.

The press conference has been criticised as a break from tradition and also a violation of guidelines for judicial conduct. What do you have to say on it?

A lot of unprecedented things have happened in the Supreme Court in the recent past but they have never been criticised. Tell me, has there been any precedent in the history of this court that a constitution bench was constituted at 3:30 in the afternoon, with seven judges and, afterwards, two chairs were removed from the court and only five judges sat? And all those who question the press conference, why do they not ask if what happened then? Wasn’t it unprecedented? (In the Prasad Medical College case, where allegations of corruption were levelled against judges and a bench led by Justice Chelameswar ordered setting up of a five-judge bench to look into the allegations. But within hours, the Chief Justice of India set up another bench and overturned the order of the twojudge bench, saying the CJI had the sole prerogative of setting up a bench and allocating matters. According to Chelameswar, this bench set up by the Chief Justice of India initially had seven judges, which then became five).

In the press conference, it was pointed out by you and other judges that all is not well in the Supreme Court and particularly the office of the Chief Justice of India. Do you think the time has come to take a relook at the office of the Chief Justice of India in terms of the powers it has?

It’s not the question of the office of the CJI, every public office in a democratic society and every holder of public office is subject to intense public scrutiny. Day in and day out, the civil society and press talk about the performance of ministers, governors and sometimes in not very complimentary terms. Even judges are public office holders and they perform to their strengths and prejudices. They ought to be subject to public

MALKANGIRI: NEWDELHI: