“I am not at all against lawyers making money, but make it honourably”, Jasti Chelameswar J. [Read full speech]

Justice Jasti Chelameswar has been in the thick of the things recently for his stance against shortcomings in judicial appointments. He has spoken out time and again about the Collegium system and the need to overhaul the process of judicial appointments. Only last week, he delivered a concurring judgment in the contempt case involving Justice Karnan wherein he spoke about “the need to revisit the process of selection and appointment of judges to the constitutional courts.”

In March this year, Justice Chelameswar had addressed a gathering at the Indian Law Institute during the release of the book “Rethinking Judicial Reforms: Reflections on Indian Legal System” authored by advocate Kaleeswaram Raj.

In his speech, Chelameswar J., had lauded advocate Kaleeswaram Raj for his book and reminisced an episode from Kerala High Court about an article written by Kaleeswaram Raj.

“Mr. Kaleeswaram Raj has argued a few cases before me when I was Chief Justice of High Court of Kerala and couple of times in the Supreme Court.  On one occasion, he was critical of one of the judgments rendered by me as Chief Justice of High Court of Kerala.  He said that I missed an opportunity of laying down something very profound. It was this Article of Mr. Kaleeswaram which made me take a serious note of him….“

Justice Chelameswar also reflected on a number of legal issues, particularly pertaining to the Supreme Court of India. Excerpts from the speech are given below.

On mediocrity in legal profession

“I have an uncomfortable feeling that we have become a society which admires and promotes mediocrity.  Brilliance is not admired.  Mr. Kaleeswaram by now should have been a prominent figure in the Indian legal system.  I believe that he has not got the recognition which is due to him.

I believe today that the kind of intellectual inquisitiveness which was exhibited by young lawyers of the earlier times and the excitement which they experienced when they had an opportunity to hear a brilliant argument in the Court hall appears to be missing.  If I am proved wrong, I will be the most happy man. I am talking about the averages of the profession.  I know that some of the youngsters are brilliant.”

On money making

“The priority seems to have shifted from learning to money making.  I am not at all against lawyers making money. Make it by all means. But make it honourably.  That is what I was told when I was an youngster. Legal profession is something more than a mere occupation.  Arguing a case well or writing a good judgment or making a critical analysis of a judgment always gave me greater satisfaction.

I have heard disparaging remarks being made by people occupying high constitutional offices about lawyers who have an academic bent of mind.  A very tragic state of affairs.”

Quality of the Bar and judiciary

“I believe the period between 1960 to 1990 did not attract the best minds to the legal profession. The best minds of those years were attracted to the study of medicine or technology.  Some even opted for the civil services.  However, there have been exceptions.

But post 1990s the situation is slowly changing, we find youngsters getting into the law colleges and profession, by choice. The choice is understandable.  Some of the successful lawyers in the Supreme Court make more money than successful film stars like Amitabh Bachchan or Rajinikanth. Perhaps that offers an explanation why the youngsters, are attracted towards the profession…I only hope honestly and pray that the future of this profession is going to be bright because ultimately the success of the judiciary depends upon the quality of the Bar. The strength and the success of the judiciary, and the utility of the system depend upon the quality of the members of the Bar.”

Impact of technology on lawyers

“Today, they have greater avenues of information. Our generation and the previous generation coveted a photographic memory, I think it has simply become irrelevant in the modern world. Have a smart phone in your hand, your memory can be kept aside and you can retrieve anything what you want from that instrument.  Before I acquired a smart phone, I used to remember at least 300-400 telephone numbers by heart.  Today, I don’t remember my own telephone number, honestly… Leave it there. !!”

On judicial appointments

“As far as the judicial appointment process is concerned, all of you are aware of the on-going story. There can never be a final word in this matter.  There are views and views. What was considered right in the 1950s and the 1960s became doubtful by the 1970s and the 1980s. By 1990s the process became objectionable and unconstitutional. A substitute was invented by a judicial interpretative process. However, with passage of time, doubts came to be expressed about the correctness of the substituted process. Another legislative experiment was made by way of the NJAC. And you know the result. The majority of the Bench held it to be an unconstitutional exercise. Well, that’s the law declared and we are bound by it. But in a democracy, the debate can always go on and will go on; it will not stop. That is the beauty of a democratic system.

What is the right appointment process?  Who should be the appointing authority?  Should there be a consultative process in the matter of judicial appointments and who should be the participants in such process?  Who will have the last word?  Who will have the primacy in the consultative process? These are all questions which possibly have multiple answers.  Irrespective of the answers to each of the above questions, the fact remains that all the exercise is meant for finding out the best available material for manning the judicial system. All of us are aware of the fact – though most of us are not willing to speak – that the selection process leaves something more to be desired.  Whether we are really picking up the best possible or available material for the Bench?  It is a question which each one of us will have to answer for ourselves. I believe that the best possible material perhaps is not being picked up for elevation to the Bench. So how do you solve this problem? It is an eternal experiment and the eternal vigilance of the bar is the price. Unless the Bar as a body is vigilant about it, unless the Bar speaks up and expresses its views about the process, things will not change.”

Supreme Court cannot handle everything

“This country lived without a Supreme Court for a hundred years before the establishment of the Supreme Court. Very few matters went to the Privy Council, after the Federal Court came into existence, for various reasons – distance and expenses etc. But the point is not that. The High Courts enjoyed such a status and such a prestige. The quality of the High Courts was such that in those years, in quite a large number of cases, people never thought of questioning the decisions thereafter. Today, the situation is different. All kinds of matters are brought before the Supreme Court. I am not blaming the litigant, he may have a genuine grievance. But the question is, can the Supreme Court handle all these? Is it possible in any country for the highest court to handle every legal problem occurring in the country, is the question. If we don’t devise a system, if we don’t improve the efficiency of the system to assure the litigant about the quality of the adjudicatory process and the efficiency and integrity of the system, the Supreme Court is bound to be flooded with litigation which it cannot handle.  Bail applications, delay condonation petitions, Panchayat and Municipal ward elections disputes – everything has to come up to this court….

At least in my view – some of my brothers may not agree with me – the Supreme Court cannot attend to every legal error committed by the system in this country. That’s not the job of Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court starts correcting every error committed by every judicial body or a quasi-judicial body in this country, it cannot do its job, i.e. constitutional adjudication.”

Read the full speech below.