Loss of Public Trust “Dangerous for SC” Says Justice Chelameswar

Video Editor: Ashutosh Bhardwaj

In a fascinating interaction with veteran journalist Karan Thapar, Justice Jasti Chelameswar on Saturday, 7 April, reaffirmed that he would not take up a post-retirement job from any government, and emphasised the importance of justice not only being done, but also being seen to be done, to ensure people’s faith in the courts.

The special event, organised by the Harvard Club of India in Delhi, saw the second senior-most judge of the Supreme Court answer questions on a range of issues, such as transparency in government, the selective allocation of cases to preferred judges, the Chief Justice of India’s (CJI’s) powers, and whether there are sufficient grounds to impeach CJI Dipak Misra.

Eloquent Silences

One of the things that stood out about the interview was the way in which Justice Chelameswar maintained propriety by not discussing ongoing cases (such as Shanti Bhushan’s petition challenging the CJI’s power) and not responding to questions on whether the CJI could be impeached.

However, even his silence spoke a great deal, including his refusal to comment on why he and the other judges of the Collegium had not been informed by the CJI about a government response on the MOP controversy. Or when he refused to say whether he had asked the CJI why Justice KM Joseph and Indu Malhotra’s names had not been reiterated to the government for appointment as Supreme Court judges despite the long delay.

“Selective Allocation Creates Doubts About the Integrity of the Institution”

Justice Chelameswar was one of the four senior judges of the Supreme Court who held an unprecedented press conference in January 2018 to express concerns about the administration of the apex court by under CJI Dipal Misra. The most significant problem identified by the judges in the letter to CJI Misra that they made public was the selective allocation of sensitive cases to judges preferred by the CJI without any sound basis.

Thapar probed Justice Chelameswar at length about the reasons behind the letter and its contents. The judge explained how the selective allocation, even if to judges who would arrive at the same conclusions as others, would lead to suspicion in the minds of the public, which are “always dangerous for institutions.”

On being asked about the Chief Justice’s power as ‘Master of the Roster’, which was used to overturn one of his decisions to refer the medical bribery cases to a bench of the five senior-most judges of the Supreme Court, Justice Chelameswar said that he still didn’t understand why this had been done, noting that:

Undoubtedly the Chief Justice would have the authority to constitute the benches. But under a constitutional system, every power is coupled with certain responsibilities. The power is required to be exercised not merely because the power exists, but for the purpose of achieving some public good.

Matters of Propriety

Justice Chelameswar also sought to give considered responses to criticisms that have been levelled against him and the other senior judges for going public with their concerns.

“After retirement, I will not seek any employment under any government,” he vowed, a position also recently taken by Justice Kurian Joseph. He said this while explaining how the judges did not have any other interests in the matter, and had gone public only because they felt they had no other choice.

They also felt they were not violating the guideline against giving interviews to the media, citing the origins of the concept which applied to judges who didn’t have administrative duties (unlike the higher judiciary in India), and noting, in a great exchange with Thapar, how the guideline only applied to talking about their judgments, not administrative matters.

With regard to concerns that have been raised by some that Justice Gogoi, currently next in line to become CJI, might be superseded because of his involvement in the press conference and letter, Justice Chelameswar said:

I am not an astrologer, Mr Thapar. I hope it will not happen. If, I repeat, if it happens, it will only prove that whatever we said in the press conference is true.