Jasti Chelameswar

Last updated

Chelameswar, once a government pleader, was appointed additional judge in the Andhra Pradesh High Court in 1997. He has been chief justice of both the Gauhati and Kerala high courts where he is perceived as having done exemplary work on the green benches there. He was made a Supreme Court judge in 2011 after an unexplained delay. This denied him the chance to be chief justice of India. He has delivered several landmark judgements while in the top court. [6]

Notable judgements

Freedom of speech

Chelameswar and Rohinton Fali Nariman formed the two judge bench of the Supreme Court of India which struck down a controversial law which gave Indian police the power to arrest anyone accused of posting emails or other electronic messages which "causes annoyance or inconvenience". The judges held Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which made such offenses punishable up to three years imprisonment, to be unconstitutional. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] According to Chelameswar and Nariman, several terms in the law they were striking down were "open-ended, undefined and vague" which made them nebulous in nature. According to the judges: "What may be offensive to one may not be offensive to another. What may cause annoyance or inconvenience to one may not cause annoyance or inconvenience to another.” [11]

In their judgement the judges clarified that a distinction needs to be made between discussion, advocacy, and incitement. Any discussion, or advocacy of even an unpopular cause cannot be restricted, and it is only when such discussion or advocacy reaches the level of incitement whereby it causes public disorder or affects the security of the state can it be curbed. [9] [10] [11]

The judgement has been welcomed for defending the Indian Constitution's ideals of tolerance and the Constitutional provisions of free speech. [12] [13] It has been pointed out that the controversial law struck down by Chelameswar and Nariman had gained notoriety after many people in India started getting arrested for seemingly innocuous reasons on the grounds that they had violated the now scrapped law. [10] [12] [13] [14]

Aadhaar

A three judge bench of the Supreme Court, composed of Chelameswar, Sharad Arvind Bobde, and Chokkalingam Nagappan, ratified an earlier order of the Supreme Court and clarified that no Indian citizen without an Aadhaar card can be deprived of basic services and government subsidies. [15] This ratification by the three judge bench however was made invalid by the subsequent judgements of the Supreme Court and notifications by the Government of India making Aadhar mandatory for basic services and government subsidies. [16] [17] [18]

National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) verdict

In his dissenting opinion in the NJAC verdict (2015), Chelameswar had criticised the collegium system of appointing judges, which he said has become "a euphemism for nepotism" where "mediocrity or even less" is promoted and a "constitutional disorder" does not look distant. [6] [19]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of India</span> Highest judicial body in India

The Supreme Court of India is the supreme judicial authority and the highest court of the Republic of India. It is the final court of appeal for all civil and criminal cases in India. It also has the power of judicial review. The Supreme Court, which consists of the Chief Justice of India and a maximum of fellow 33 judges, has extensive powers in the form of original, appellate and advisory jurisdictions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rohinton Fali Nariman</span> Indian judge (born 1956)

Rohinton Fali Nariman is a former judge of the Supreme Court of India. Before being elevated as a judge, he practised as a senior counsel at the Supreme Court. He was appointed the Solicitor General of India on 23 July 2011. He also served as a member of the Bar Council of India. He was designated as a Senior Counsel by Chief Justice Manepalli Narayana Rao Venkatachaliah in 1993 at the early age of 37.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jagdish Singh Khehar</span> 44th Chief Justice of India

Jagdish Singh Khehar is a former senior advocate and a former judge, who served as the 44th Chief Justice of India in 2017. Khehar is the first chief justice from the Sikh community. He has been a judge in Supreme Court of India from 13 September 2011 to 27 August 2017 upon superannuation. He served for a brief period but gave many landmark judgements such as the Triple Talaq and the Right to Privacy verdict. He was succeeded by Justice Dipak Misra.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ranjan Gogoi</span> 46th Chief Justice of India, Member of Rajya Sabha

Ranjan Gogoi is an Indian former advocate and judge who served as the 46th Chief Justice of India from 2018 to 2019, having previously served as a Judge of the Supreme Court of India from 2012 to 2018. He is currently a Member of the Rajya Sabha, having been nominated by President Ram Nath Kovind on 16 March 2020. Gogoi served as a judge in the Gauhati High Court from 2001 to 2010, and then was transferred as a judge to the Punjab and Haryana High Court from 2010 to 2011 where he later was the Chief Justice from 2011 to 2012. He is also a member of the Committee on External Affairs in the Rajya Sabha.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dipak Misra</span> 45th Chief Justice of India

Dipak Misra is an Indian jurist who served as the 45th Chief Justice of India from 28 August 2017 till 2 October 2018. He is also former Chief Justice of the Patna High Court and Delhi High Court. He is the nephew of Justice Ranganath Misra, who was the 21st Chief Justice from 1990 to 1991.

Amitava Roy is the retired judge of the Supreme Court of India and former Chief Justice of the Odisha High Court and Rajasthan High Court. He is also a puisne judge of the Gauhati High Court.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">K. M. Joseph</span> Indian judge (born 1958)

Kuttiyil Mathew Joseph is a former judge of the Supreme Court of India; he retired on 16 June 2023. He is former chief justice of the Uttarakhand High Court. Before his appointment as chief justice of the High Court of Uttarakhand on 31 July 2014, he had served as a judge of the Kerala High Court for more than nine years.

Chokkalingam Nagappan is a former judge of the Supreme Court of India who served from September 2013 till his retirement in October 2016.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sharad Bobde</span> 47th Chief Justice of India

Sharad Arvind Bobde is an Indian judge who served as the 47th Chief Justice of India from 18 November 2019 to 23 April 2021.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Prafulla Chandra Pant</span> Indian judge (born 1952)

Prafulla Chandra Pant is an Indian judge and author who served as a judge of the Supreme Court of India from 2014 to 2017. He later served as a member of the National Human Rights Commission of India from 2019 to 2021, and briefly acted as its chairperson. Prior to his appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court of India, he had previously served as chief justice of the Meghalaya High Court at Shillong and as a judge of the Uttarakhand High Court at Nainital.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National Judicial Appointments Commission</span> Failed proposal for an Indian legal body

The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was a proposed body which would have been responsible for the recruitment, appointment and transfer of judicial officers, legal officers and legal employees under the government of India and in all state governments of India. The commission was established by amending the Constitution of India through the 99th constitution amendment with the Constitution (Ninety-Ninth Amendment) Act, 2014 or 99th Constitutional Amendment Act-2014 passed by the Lok Sabha on 13 August 2014 and by the Rajya Sabha on 14 August 2014. The NJAC would have replaced the collegium system for the appointment of judges as invoked by the Supreme court via judicial fiat by a new system. Along with the Constitution Amendment Act, the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014, was also passed by the Parliament of India to regulate the functions of the National Judicial Appointments Commission. The NJAC Bill and the Constitutional Amendment Bill, was ratified by 16 of the state legislatures in India, and subsequently assented by the President of India Pranab Mukherjee on 31 December 2014. The NJAC Act and the Constitutional Amendment Act came into force from 13 April 2015.

<i>Mouthshut.com versus Union of India</i> Indian court case concerning freedom of speech and expression on the Internet

MouthShut.com versus Union of India was a writ petition filed by Mouthshut.com, a consumer review social media company, and its founder Faisal Farooqui, to protect freedom of speech and expression on the Internet. In this case, they challenged Sec. 66A and sought modifications or nullification of IT Rules and Section 79 of the Information Technology Act of India. This case was pivotal in determining the responsibility of intermediaries for online speech in India. On 24 March 2015, the Supreme Court issued a judgment in favor of the petitioner(s) and nullified Sec. 66A, deeming it unconstitutional. It also ordered the reading down of various other sections of the IT Act, including section 79 and the IT Rules. Consequently, individuals are free to post anything online, and publishers cannot be compelled to remove content without a court order. This decision applies to all user-generated content on the Internet.

Shreya Singhal is an Indian lawyer. Her fight against Section 66A of the Information Technology Act of 2000 in 2015 brought her to national prominence in India.

<i>Shreya Singhal v. Union of India</i> Online Free Speech & IT Act, 2000

Shreya Singhal v. Union of India is a judgement by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India in 2015, on the issue of online speech and intermediary liability in India. The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, relating to restrictions on online speech, as unconstitutional on grounds of violating the freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The Court further held that the Section was not saved by virtue of being a 'reasonable restriction' on the freedom of speech under Article 19(2). The Supreme Court also read down Section 79 and Rules under the Section. It held that online intermediaries would only be obligated to take down content on receiving an order from a court or government authority. The case is considered a watershed moment for online free speech in India.

<i>Right to Privacy verdict</i> Indian Fundamental Rights Case Law

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) &Anr. vs. Union of India &Ors. (2017), also known as the Right to Privacy verdict, is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India, which holds that the right to privacy is protected as a fundamental right under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Brijgopal Harkishan Loya (1966–2014) was an Indian judge who served in a special court which deals with matters relating to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). He was presiding over the Sohrabuddin Sheikh case, and died on 1 December 2014 in Nagpur. A bench of the Supreme Court of India, headed by the Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, on April 19, 2018, dismissed the public interest petition (PIL), and stated the death to be natural and such petitions to be an attack on the Judiciary.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2018 Supreme Court of India crisis</span>

The Supreme Court of India was in crisis after a press conference was given by Supreme Court judges Jasti Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan Lokur, and Kurian Joseph, in which they spoke against the Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra that he allocated certain politically controversial cases to such benches which give favourable judgements towards a political party.

<i>Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India</i> Indian LGBT Rights Case Law

Navtej Singh Johar &Ors. v. Union of India thr. Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice (2018) is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India that decriminalised all consensual sex among adults, including homosexual sex.

Justice Arindam Lodh is an Indian Judge at the High Court of Tripura since May 2018. He is due to retire not earlier than March 2025.

<i>Ujjawal v. State of Haryana</i> Indian LGBT Rights Case

Ujjawal &Anr. versus State of Haryana&Ors.(2021), a case where Punjab and Haryana High Court, refused to provide police protection to a couple facing threat to their lives and personal liberty, citing potential disruption to "social fabric of the society."

References

  1. 1 2 "Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasti Chelameswar". Supreme Court of India. Archived from the original on 20 November 2016. Retrieved 28 June 2012.
  2. ↑ "Justice Jasti Chelameswar sits with CJI Dipak Misra, dispels speculations". barandbench.com. 18 May 2018. Retrieved 4 October 2018.
  3. ↑ Rautray, Samanwaya. "Meet Jasti Chelameswar, only judge who ruled in favour of government's NJAC - The Economic Times". The Economic Times. Retrieved 3 November 2015.
  4. ↑ "Turmoil in Supreme Court as four judges speak out against Chief Justice Dipak Misra". Hindustan Times. 12 January 2018. Retrieved 18 May 2018.
  5. ↑ "Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasti Chelameswar" . Retrieved 20 December 2016.
  6. 1 2 "Meet Jasti Chelameswar, only judge who ruled in favour of government's NJAC". The Economic Times. 17 October 2015. Retrieved 20 December 2016.
  7. ↑ "Section 66A: India court strikes down 'Facebook' arrest law". BBC. 24 March 2015. Retrieved 19 December 2016.
  8. ↑ "India supreme court strikes down internet censorship law". The Guardian. 24 March 2015. Retrieved 19 December 2016.
  9. 1 2 "A blow for free speech". The Hoot. 25 March 2015. Retrieved 19 December 2016.
  10. 1 2 3 "Supreme Court upholds free speech on internet, scraps 'unconstitutional' Section 66A of IT Act". Hindustan Times. 25 March 2015. Retrieved 19 December 2016.
  11. 1 2 3 "SC strikes down 'draconian' Section 66A". The Hindu. 24 March 2015. Retrieved 19 December 2016.
  12. 1 2 "The judgment that silenced Section 66A". The Hindu. 26 March 2015. Retrieved 19 December 2016.
  13. 1 2 "Our Politicians Loved Section 66(A)". NDTV. 24 March 2015. Retrieved 19 December 2016.
  14. ↑ "Stats from 2014 reveal horror of scrapped section 66A of IT Act". Hindustan Times. 20 August 2015. Retrieved 19 December 2016.
  15. ↑ "Don't insist on Aadhar, warns SC". The Hindu. 16 March 2015. Retrieved 20 December 2016.
  16. ↑ "Aadhaar mandatory for availing subsidised foodgrains from PDS". The Hindu. PTI. 9 February 2017. ISSN   0971-751X . Retrieved 13 October 2020.
  17. ↑ "COVID-19 and Aadhaar: Why the Union Government's Relief Package is an Exclusionary Endeavour". Economic and Political Weekly: 7–8. 5 June 2015.
  18. ↑ Staff Writer (26 September 2018). "What Supreme Court's Aadhaar verdict means for you: 10 points". mint. Retrieved 13 October 2020.
  19. ↑ "The judge who dissented: 'No accountability, mediocrity or even less promoted, reform overdue'". The Indian Express. 17 October 2015. Retrieved 3 November 2015.
Jasti Chelameswar
Jasti Chelameswar.jpg
Jasti Chelameswar (April 2014)
Judge of the Supreme Court of India
In office
10 October 2011 [1]  –22 June 2018
International
National
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.