Newsmaker: Justice Jasti Chelameswar's free spirit

Though nine judges of the Supreme Court sitting in three separate benches were involved in the sordid drama, which ended this week, Justice Jasti Chelameswar, 64, was the key figure on all counts. This is the second time in two years that he has hit the headlines on highly sensitive issues. Earlier, he wrote the lone dissenting judgment opposing the collegium system of selecting judges of the Supreme Court and high courts. Later, he declined to attend the collegium meetings alleging that it was not functioning in a transparent manner.

While the controversy over the collegium system is still simmering, Chelameswar became the eye of the new storm, involving corruption in the judiciary. This time, the point of discord was not the substance of the allegations but the procedure. Since the circuitous procedure and conventions for setting up Supreme Court benches are beyond the comprehension of ordinary people, they cannot be blamed for perceiving the events in a simplistic manner and deciding that there was corruption at the apex of the judiciary and that dark forces  wanted to cover it up. Neither suspicion is proved, but the image of the court has been badly bruised.

The two petitions seeking a special investigation team (SIT) to look into allegations contained in a first information report (FIR) filed by the Cental Bureau of Investigation were listed before two different benches. One bench referred the petition before it to the Chief Justice for setting up an “appropriate” bench, but the bench Chelameswar presided over directed the petition before it to be heard by a five-judge bench of senior judges. Within hours, Chief Justice Dipak Misra rose from the constitution bench over which he was presiding and constituted a five-judge bench that annulled the Chelameswar order.

Misra asserted that it is the chief justice’s prerogative to set up a constitution bench and he can pick the judges to fill it. The order was passed in his jam-packed courtroom amid shouting matches by the men in black. Former Chief Justice T S Thakur once described a normal day in his courtroom as a “fish market”; in the absence of video coverage, one can only imagine the degree of chaos in this case.

Chelameswar has not spoken about the controversy surrounding his order, as judicial discipline does not permit him to do so. But lawyers have been vigorously debating the procedural intricacies on legal websites. They have spared neither the chief justice nor Chelameswar, who is second in the hierarchy. Some people allege that the judge is carrying an old heartburn over seniority and lost opportunities. There were leaked reports involving his lawyer-son whose name came up before the collegium during a discussion on the transfer of a judge to Andhra Pradesh. Since all the proceedings of the collegium were opaque, nothing could be confirmed. But it should go to Chelameswar’s credit that the Supreme Court has at last decided to disclose the reasons leading to the selection of judges on its website. For decades, one had to go by rumours in the lawyers’ canteen, for what they were worth.

Chelameswar is the most talked-about judge in the corridors of the Supreme Court. Speculation shadows him all the way. He was shifted from the bench that was hearing the 2G spectrum scam a few years ago. Earlier this week, a case involving an officer of the Enforcement Directorate was listed for hearing by his bench but was shifted to the chief justice’s court through a supplementary listing. In August last year, he and another judge had expressed dissatisfaction over an order by a larger bench on procedural issues.

During Chief Justice J S Khehar’s tenure, Chelameswar had declined to be a member of any of the benches that would determine important issues like triple talaq and privacy in WhatsApp contract policies. While Khehar appealed to his colleagues to cut short their summer vacation and clear important cases, Chelameswar excused himself on the ground that he would like to utilise the recess for personal work.

His judgments are clear and forthright. Dissenting with his brethren on the collegium issue, he wrote that the system has become “a euphemism for nepotism” where “mediocrity or even less” is promoted. When the C S Karnan matter (another unseemly episode in which a Calcutta High Court judge was chased and arrested) came up before his bench, he wrote enigmatically: “Have we really outgrown the malady of dependence or merely transferred it from political to the judicial hierarchy?”  He was part of the bench that struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which gave the police power to arrest anyone accused of posting electronic messages which “causes annoyance or inconvenience”. His bench clarified that no citizen without an Aadhaar card can be deprived of basic services and government subsidies.

Chelameswar started his legal career in Andhra Pradesh and rose to become the chief justice of the Gauhati and Kerala high courts before joining the Supreme Court in 2011.  He is due to retire in June next year.

He holds a lively court because he is vocal and audible, unlike most other judges. He needs no mike, but he made headlines recently when he switched on the public address system, which had been gathering dust for over three decades. It was a blessing for the litigants and public who are forced otherwise to stretch their necks from the back row to see the judges through mounds of paper.