Indira Jaising, an advocate of the Supreme Court of India, praising Justice Chelameswar, the second senior-most judge of the court, on his openness in discussing a range of issues – from the transparency in government to the discrepancies in the Indian judiciary – during a Havard Club of India event in New Delhi on 7 April.
Along with being the first woman senior advocate to be designated by the Bombay High Court, Jaising is also the first Indian woman to be elected to the UN Committee on Elimination of Discrimination against Women and the first of her gender to be appointed Additional Solicitor General of India, reported The Hindu.
Jaising has been vocal about the discrepancies in the Indian judiciary earlier as well, especially in matters related to the administration of the Supreme Court. She has often openly called out judges for their role in adding to chaos.
Justice Chelameswar discussed these impertinent matters in a conversation with veteran journalist Karan Thapar.
In the interaction, Justice Chelameswar had stated that he would not take up a post-retirement job from the government. Speaking about the need to ensure the faith of the people remains in the court, he stressed on the importance of justice not only being done but also being seen as done.
Chelameswar was one of the four senior judges of the Supreme Court who, in a controversial press conference in January, had expressed his concern regarding the functioning of the Indian judiciary under Chief Justice Dipak Misra.
When asked about the reason behind the letter which was submitted by these judges, Chelameswar said that it mainly addressed the problem of “selective allocation of cases.”
Under a constitutional system, every power is coupled with certain responsibilities. The power (of the CJI) is required to be exercised not merely because the power exists, but for the purpose of achieving some public good.Justice Chelameswar to Karan Thapar
Speaking about the flak that the four senior judges received from the public for going public with their criticism, he said that they did not have any vested “interest” in the matter, and only that they felt as if they didn’t have any other resort.
Justice Chelameswar, however, did not make any comment on the ongoing cases (such as Shanti Bhushan’s petition challenging the CJI’s power) and did not offer a direct answer when asked about his opinion on whether the chief justice should be impeached.
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)