Rendering justice with clarity: Meet India's new CJI Jagdish Singh Khehar

Justice Khehar is known for the landmark judgment on the collegium system

The new Chief Justice of India, Jagdish Singh Khehar, got a glimpse of what is to come during his short tenure when he sat with the outgoing Chief Justice, T S Thakur, early this week. There were acrimonious scenes before them with Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi and an array of senior counsel shouting over the non-appointment of judges in High Courts. The crucial issue was the power of the collegium of judges, which Justice Khehar had declared in his landmark judgment last year was above that of the executive in matters of selection of judges.

How this confrontation between the judiciary and the executive, the most intense since the Indira Gandhi era, will unfold is practically in the hands of Justice Khehar who has hardly eight months in the highest seat of justice. The issue had wetted the eyes of Justice Thakur in public last year. But Khehar knows that being a judge is not easy. Last year, he said during a hearing that “being a judge is a tough job. It is a burn-out situation…It is difficult to sustain such pressure for long years.”

Born in 1952 into a Sikh immigrant family from Kenya, he was enrolled as advocate in 1979 after winning a gold medal for his LLM from Panjab University. He has dealt with complex issues since he was elevated to the Punjab & Haryana High Court and became chief justice of the Uttarakand and Karnataka High Courts. He came to the Supreme Court in 2011, and has now became the 44th chief justice in the 67 years of the republic.

Justice Khehar tends to write long and erudite judgments, but they are easy to read and devoid of legalese. The collegium judgment was one of his longest in which he warned that wrong selection of judges would lead to “chaos of sorts.” He has promised to guard the independence of judiciary jealously. 

On Constitution Day last November, he declared that the judiciary would not cross the “Lakshman Rekha” so long as the executive and legislature follow constitutional principles. Responding to Rohatgi’s accusation of judicial overreach, the judge maintained that “liberty, equality and dignity of citizen have flourished substantially due to the pro-active role of the judiciary.”

Apart from the judgment upholding the collegium system in which judges choose judges, he has written several notable decisions. He was part of the bench which sent Subrata Roy of Sahara straight from the court room to the Tihar Jail in Delhi where he spent about two years.

Last year, he presided over a constitution bench which set aside the imposition of President’s rule in Arunachal Pradesh, recommended by the Narendra Modi government. He was also part of the bench which wrote the celebrated 2G judgment which quashed allotments of scarce spectrum to telecom firms without auction. He wrote: “No part of natural resource can be dissipated as a matter of largesse, charity, donation or endowment, for private exploitation. Each bit of natural resource expended must bring back a reciprocal consideration.” 

Recently, he wrote another significant judgment holding that the principal of ‘equal pay for equal work’ has to be made applicable to those engaged as daily wagers, casual and contractual employees who perform the same duties as regulars. 

His experience as judge has also brought him in touch with the seamy side of judiciary. He defended former Supreme Court judge V Ramaswami before a judicial enquiry committee to probe into corruption charges. The judge barely escaped impeachment. He was nominated by the Rajya Sabha chairman as a member of the judicial committee for investigating the grounds on which the removal of Chief Justice PD Dinakaran of the Karnataka High Court was sought. He has also probed sexual harassment cases in the High Courts of Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka.

Sitting in the court room with his iconic white turban, he has the knack of keeping the proceedings lively and balanced. He speaks in loud and clear voice, and on the first day he switched off the microphone used by his predecessor who spoke in soft tones. Last December, he did raise his voice when he heard provocative statements against his person from a counsel in the Sahara-Aditya Birla case. However, the judge managed to avoid an ugly situation. That reminded some about his trips to donate blood at AIIMS every quarter, a practice he reportedly followed for four decades.