‘We tried to set things right in Supreme Court’
SPEAKING OUT Says the ‘extraordinary’
Jan 12 presser, where 4 judges came together to criticise the Chief Justice, was to inform the nation about what was wrong in the apex court
NEWDELHI: 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: 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. 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. excessively and disproportionately invades the right of free speech”, the bench said
Aadhaar case: In 2015, Justice Chelameswar was a part of the three-judge bench, which said that no Indian can be denied government subsidies and other services just because they do not have an Aadhaar number/card
Right to privacy: Justice Chelameswar was a part of the nine-judge bench that declared right to privacy a fundamental right in August 2017. Jan 12, 2018, press conference: With three other judges, he criticised the way cases are allocated in SC Prasad Medical College case: A bench headed by him referred a case of alleged corruption against judges to a bench of five judges
Collegium boycott: In Sept 2016, Chelameswar wrote to then CJI TS Thakur, refusing to attend collegium meets over a “lack of transparency “Refusal: Says no to a farewell that is traditionally given to the retiring judge of the Supreme Court. but even that system is required to function in the interest of the people of this country and anything that is not rational and transparent is not in the interest of the people of this country. When you choose a person as a judge, you need to see a certain procedure has to be followed. Is the selection process as rational as it should be? Are we adopting a procedure that is transparent? The idea of collegium, a multimember body, was mooted 20 years back. The idea of consultative process is inherent and that is democracy. Why not have a Prime Minister alone? Why (is there) a Cabinet? Because the constitution framers in their wisdom believed that in a democratic system, plurality of opinions and interaction of minds will yield greater wisdom. Why is the same principle not incorporated in the context of the consultation of the Chief Justice of India? In fact, it was Justice (PN) Bhagwati who wrote for the first time, saying that there is no guarantee that the Chief Justice of India will always protect the institution. If I say this, immediately somebody will interpret it as a personal feud between me and Justice (Dipak) Misra (the current Chief Justice). Bhagwati wrote this even before I and Justice Misra were born in the judiciary. I wrote to the former Chief Justice of India (Justice Thakur) expressing my dissent at the non–transparent manner of the functioning of the collegium, but not much has changed since then. name of the new chief justice, but exercise the power bona fide — he/she has to give reasons. The tradition is that the seniormost is recommended as the new CJI, but for any reason, if the CJI departs from the tradition, he/she should have the freedom to do so provided he/she records his/her reasons (saying), “For this reason I consider the seniormost judge as unfit to become the CJI.” There is nothing wrong in the CJI recommending the name, somebody has to do it. The accusation that governments dangle post-retirement jobs in tribunals and other offices to judges and subtly manoeuvre the courts has always been made and it needs to be guarded against. It is for the public to decide if a particular appointment is made on genuine assessment of the person’s suitability or for certain extraneous reasons of the government. I can talk for myself that I have decided not take any post-retirement job. In some cases, people who are related to former judges reach the high court or the Supreme Court, that by itself does not indicate anything is wrong. If a judge’s son or daughter is suitable and otherwise competent, why should he/she not become a judge? Should he/she be barred merely because his/her father was a judge ? The question is, “Is the person being made a judge because of his/ her abilities or for being related to a judge?” There have been cases both ways. In some case, it’s only because of the relationship that it happened and in more cases these are outstanding people (who are being appointed).