Preceded by S. R. Bannurmath Succeeded by Manjula Chellur Education Andhra University | Role Judge Name Jasti Chelameswar | |
 | ||
Appointed by Pratibha Patil, President of India Born 23 June 1953 (age 70)
Machilipatnam, Krishna dist, Andhra Pradesh, India ( 1953-06-23 ) | ||
Jasti chelameswar with sadhguru through the mystic eye
Jasti Chelameswar (born 23 June 1953) is a judge on the Supreme Court of India. He was formerly the Chief Justice of the High Court of Kerala and Gauhati High Court.
Contents
- Jasti chelameswar with sadhguru through the mystic eye
- Justice sri jasti chelameswar at vignan university convocation
- Early life
- Career
- Freedom of Speech
- Aadhar
- National Judicial Appointments CommissionNJAC verdict
- References
Justice sri jasti chelameswar at vignan university convocation
Early life
Chalameswar was born in Krishna district, Andhra Pradesh, India to Jasti Annapoorna and Lakshminarayana, a lawyer at Machilipatnam, Krishna Dist. He Graduated in Science (Physics) at the Madras Loyola College and Law from Andhra University, Visakhapatnam, in 1976.
Career
Chalameswar served as the Additional Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Later, he became the Chief Justice of Guwahati High Court in 2007. He was later transferred as the Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court and was elevated as a Judge, Supreme Court of India in October 2011.
According to an Op-Ed in The Economic Times:
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 Guwahati 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.
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. 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.”
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.
The judgement has been welcomed for defending the Indian Constitution's ideals of tolerance and the Constitutional provisions of free speech. 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 ground that they had violated the now scrapped law.
Aadhar
A three judge bench of the Indian Supreme Court, comprising 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.
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.