In response to this, Justice Chelameswar, in his characteristic sarcastic manner, said, “You have been referring to one particular individual’s name. I don’t think it is worth spending so much of time on that name.”
KERALA: Former Supreme Court judge, Justice Jasti Chelameswar, has always been known for his candidness, even during his tenure as a judge. This aspect of his personality was clearly visible at the Wayanad Literature Festival in December 2024, where he engaged in an insightful discussion with Member of Parliament, John Brittas, on the complex relationship between courts and politics.
One of the most striking moments of the event occurred when Brittas asked Justice Chelameswar about the stance of former Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, regarding the Places of Worship Act.
In his question, Brittas referred to a Supreme Court ruling from 2019, where the Constitution Bench, under Justice Chandrachud, had stated that the Places of Worship Act was “sacrosanct.” However, in 2022, the same judge reportedly said that the judgment did not prevent anyone from “digging up or doing a survey” at religious sites.
Brittas raised concerns about the ensuing litigation over at least 11 religious sites, which had allegedly led to riots in various regions.
In response to this, Justice Chelameswar, in his characteristic sarcastic manner, said, “You have been referring to one particular individual’s name. I don’t think it is worth spending so much of time on that name.”
With that simple but pointed remark, Justice Chelameswar chose not to engage directly with the specifics of the case, signaling his disapproval of drawing attention to individual judicial actions in such a manner.
The discussion soon turned towards the broader issue of political and ideological leanings influencing judicial decisions. Brittas brought up several instances where judges appeared to engage in political activities, citing a case where a judge publicly supported a political organization, resigned from his post, and even contested elections.
Additionally, he mentioned Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav’s involvement in a cultural organization, where he allegedly made statements that could incite controversy.
Brittas asked Justice Chelameswar if such actions, especially in the name of “political awareness,” were acceptable, and if they indicated a larger erosion of values within the judiciary.
Justice Chelameswar’s response was firm and clear. He emphasized the importance of separating political beliefs from judicial duties.
He said, “Certainly not. I may have my own political preferences. But once I sat in that chair, I believe, subject to contrary opinion from public, that my political affiliations or past affiliations did not interfere with my decision making. If somebody is not following it, I certainly don’t agree that is the right way. The right way is to keep it (political preferences) away.”
In this statement, Justice Chelameswar underlined the principle of judicial neutrality, asserting that personal political leanings should not affect a judge’s role in delivering justice. His views reflect a deep concern for maintaining the integrity of the judiciary and its separation from the influence of partisan politics. This clarity in his opinion resonated with many, reinforcing the idea that judges must prioritize their constitutional duties over personal or political biases.
Who Is Justice Jasti Chelameswar
Justice Jasti Chelameswar, a distinguished former Supreme Court judge, has always been known for his sharp legal mind and candid views. His educational journey began with a Bachelor’s degree in Physics from Madras Loyola College, followed by a Bachelor of Law from Andhra University, Visakhapatnam in 1976. Soon after, he began his legal career by enrolling as an Advocate at the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. He practised under renowned Senior Advocates Dr. B. Bhimaraju, Mr. P. Rajarao, and Mr. K. Srinivasa Murthy, further sharpening his legal acumen.
Justice Chelameswar’s commitment to public service led him to hold important positions, including Standing Counsel for the Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta in 1985 and 1986. He also served as a Government Pleader at the High Court of Andhra Pradesh from 1988 to 1989. His legal expertise was further recognized in 1995 when he was designated as a Senior Counsel and appointed as Additional Advocate General for the state.
ALSO READ: Former Supreme Court Judge Indira Banerjee Addresses ‘Gender Imbalance’ in the Judiciary
Notable Contributions and Landmark Judgments:
Justice Chelameswar is widely regarded for his thought-provoking and sometimes dissenting views on key legal matters. One of his most significant contributions came when he delivered a dissenting opinion in the landmark case Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association v Union of India.
This case challenged the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), with the majority of the bench declaring it unconstitutional. Justice Chelameswar, however, felt that the collegium system was deeply flawed. He critiqued it for being opaque, inaccessible, and accused it of promoting nepotism, with mediocrity often being rewarded over merit. In his dissent, he argued that the NJAC was a much-needed reform to address the significant challenges facing the judiciary, such as the backlog of cases and the failure to fill judicial vacancies. His criticism of the collegium system extended to his personal decision to opt-out of it, a clear indicator of his disapproval of its functioning.
Another key judgment where Justice Chelameswar made a significant impact was the unconstitutionality of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, along with his fellow judges. This provision was struck down as it was deemed arbitrary and overly broad, violating the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.
Justice Chelameswar was also part of the bench that upheld the Haryana Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act, 2015, which mandated a minimum educational qualification for candidates wishing to contest in Panchayat elections. This judgment was seen as an effort to enhance the quality of local governance in the state by ensuring that candidates have basic educational standards.
Furthermore, he was a member of the bench that made a significant clarification regarding the Aadhaar card. The ruling asserted that no Indian citizen should be denied access to basic services or government subsidies solely due to the lack of an Aadhaar card, ensuring that citizens’ rights to welfare were protected regardless of their enrollment status in the Aadhaar system.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
