Judge v. Judge: Justice Jasti Chelamewar and other battles

The Supreme Court of India’s Jasti Chelameswar J. created a big storm by refusing to attend the Collegium meeting yesterday. He has also shot off a letter to Chief justice TS Thakur informing the CJI about his “unwillingness” to attend the Collegium meetings.

. What makes things more interesting is the fact that this news was published by The New Indian Express , a newspaper which has its presence only in the southern region of the country and has no reporter in the Supreme Court.

. But perhaps more importantly, the question that is now doing the rounds of the Supreme Court is whether disagreements on the administrative side are now beginning to reflect on the judicial side as well.

. As first reported by Bar & Bench , Justice Chelameswar had come out with a strongly worded order against a three-judge Bench a few days back. The order clearly expresses dissatisfaction with the Bench of Justices JS Khehar , Kurian Joseph and Arun Mishra.

. The order reads,

. “A re-hearing of the entire matter as apparently suggested to the larger Bench, in our opinion, would amount to an intra-court appeal. If the larger Bench of this Court wishes to create such an intra-court appeal, we obviously are powerless to stop it.

. We can only record our understanding of the law on the question and it is as recorded above.”

. This observation, however, seemed a tad unfair considering the fact that the larger Bench had, in fact, referred the matter back to the Division Bench for clarity on the reference. The reference order did not have any question framed for consideration by the larger Bench.

. With Justice Chelameswar’s dissent in the Collegium becoming public knowledge, it remains to be seen how the Chief Justice of India will tackle the issue. Whether this internal dissent would take the bite out of CJI Thakur’s appeal to the executive (to speed up judges appointments) will also be closely watched.

. This is not the first time news of rifts between judges is coming to fore.

. In April 2015, a controversy had erupted when Justice Kurian Joseph had written a letter to the then Chief Justice HL Dattu for holding Chief Justice conference on Easter holiday.

. Justice Joseph had questioned the timing of the conference citing the difficulties some of the judges would face on account of the holy days due to religious ceremonies and family get together.

. The judge had also said that by holding the conference on such holy days, the judiciary would be giving a wrong message to other Constitutional institutions and public bodies who “may feel compelled not to give equal importance and respect to all holy days.” He also clarified that he was not attempting to strike “a communal note” but only expressing his concern that an institution which is bound to protect the secular fabric of the country is drifting away from the same.

. This had not gone down well with Justice Dattu, who went ahead with the conference, which Justice Joseph eventually skipped.

. What made this particular event even more significant was the fact this happened around the time when another “difference of opinion” was raging – this time within the Collegium itself.

. Chief Justice HL Dattu was facing serious difficulties with a judge in the Collegium , who was refusing to push through any appointments, since the National Judicial Appointments Commission was expected to come into force.

. A challenge to the NJAC was also pending in the Supreme Court.

. The Collegium, it was reported, was divided into two groups and it was rumoured that elevations to the Supreme Court had hit a road block due to the impasse between the two groups in the Collegium. One faction was not interested in pushing through any appointments given the fact that the judicial appointments process was undergoing a transition.

. With the hearing in the NJAC case in Supreme Court getting underway, it was finally decided that no appointments would be made in the meanwhile, thereby putting an end to the impasse with the Collegium being shelved for a few months.

. Though that particular Collegium was expected to be the last, the NJAC was struck down reviving the Collegium.

. Rewind a few more years and we find that Justice Chelameswar was not the first judge who refused to attend the Collegium meetings. Justice KG Balakrishnan was the Chief Justice when a judge refused to attend the Collegium meetings. Justice Balakrishnan might not necessarily have the best reputation around as a judge but his man management skills were noteworthy. It is learnt that Justice Balakrishnan actually went to the chamber of the dissenting judge and had a long chat with him before taking him into confidence.

. Many times, the battles have spilled into court rooms as well. In January this year, Justices MY Eqbal and Arun Mishra had an unsavoury spat in open court . The two judges got into a heated argument over whether to admit a case or not.

. When things reached an impasse, Justice Eqbal remarked that he has been presiding the Bench for three years. Justice Mishra refused to take that remark standing down and retorted that he had equal rights as a puisne judge of the Bench. Lawyers and visitors watched in stunned silence.

. Differences between judges on the judicial side are a part and parcel of the functioning of judiciary. However, the administrative task of Collegium has given rise to another kind of battle between the judges – a battle which many a time is sparked by personal prejudices but which, however, has judicial implications as well.

. The sooner the functioning of the Collegium system is ironed out, the better it would be for all involved.

. Image courtesy:

. Justice Jasti Chelameswar

. Justice HL Dattu

Judge v. Judge: Justice Jasti Chelamewar and other battles

Murali Krishnan

Related Stories