The four Supreme Court judges who revolted against CJI Dipak Misra

Four supreme court judges held a press conference on Friday at Justice Chelameswar's residence in New Delhi.

By: Express Web Desk | New Delhi | Updated: January 12, 2018 5:45 pm
(Express photo by Abhinav Sabha)

In an unprecedented turn of events, four top Supreme Court judges held a press conference in New Delhi on Friday and released a letter they had written to the Chief Justice of India Justice Dipak Misra. Justice Jasti Chelameswar, Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Madan Bhimrao Lokur and Justice Kurian Joseph said there was an urgent need to preserve the judiciary system to save the democracy of the country.

Here is a brief profile of the four judges who addressed the press conference:

Justice Chelameswar

Justice Jasti Chelameswar, the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court after the CJI, was elevated as Supreme Court judge on October 11, 2011. He served as judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and later as Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court and the Kerala High Court before being elevated to the Supreme Court.

The sixty-four-year-old judge was the only judge in the Bench who ruled in favour of the government in the National Judicial Appointment Commission Act case where the court declared the NJAC Act unconstitutional. He was also a part of the Bench that struck down 66A of the IT Act.

Justice Chelameswar is set to retire on June 22, 2018. He was part of the nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court that had in August ruled that Indians enjoy a fundamental right to privacy, that it is intrinsic to life and liberty and thus comes under Article 21 of the Indian constitution.

Justice Ranjan Gogoi

Justice Ranjan Gogoi is the 3rd seniormost judge in the apex court. He is in line to become the Chief Justice of India after Chief Justice Dipak Misra’s retirement on October 2 this year. Justice Gogoi has served as judge of Gauhati High Court and later Chandigarh High Court before being elevated to Supreme Court in April 2012.

Justice Madan Lokur

Justice Madan Bhimrao Lokur, appointed as Supreme Court judge on June 4, 2012, is the fourth seniormost judge of the Supreme Court. Before being elevated as a judge in the apex court, he served as acting Chief Justice of Delhi High Court, and later Chief Justice of Gauhati High Court and Andhra Pradesh High Court.

Justice Lokur’s profile on apex court’s website says he has interest in judicial reforms, computerisation of courts, and is the judge in charge of E-committee of the Supreme Court of India.

Justice Lokur was also part of the division bench that quashed the government’s order to grant 4.5% sub-quota to minorities carved out of 27% OBC reservation.

While acting as Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court, Justice Lokur suspended and ordered the prosecution of CBI judge T Pattabhirama Rao in a mining corruption case. He retires on December 30, 2018.

Justice Kurian Joseph

Justice Kurian Joseph was elevated to the Supreme Court on March 8, 2013. Elevated as a judge to Kerala High Court in 2000, Justice Joseph has served twice as acting chief justice of Kerala High Court. He served as Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh High Court before being appointed as judge of the Supreme Court.

Justice Joseph was part of the high profile delegation to the Vatican City to attend the canonisation of Mother Teresa in 2016. Justice Joseph, along with Justices Anil R Dave and Amitava Roy constituted the Bench which heard the controversial Italian Marines case. Justice Joseph is set to retire on November 29 this year.

He was a part of the five-judge Supreme Court bench that held triple talaq as “unconstitutional”. In a 397-page ruling, though two judges upheld validity of Instant triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat), the three other judges held that it was unconstitutional, thus barring the practice by 3–2 majority.

For all the latest India News, download Indian Express App

  1. Surya Prakash Sharma
    Jan 13, 2018 at 6:10 am
    1. Indian Singh
      Jan 12, 2018 at 7:45 pm
      The COLLEGIUM System of APPOINTING JUDGES is NOT as per the laid down procedure of Indian Cons ution. The system was evolved by SC JUDGES themselves through Supreme Court judgments in the Three Judges Cases (October 28, 1998). The POWER of APPOINTMENT invariably comes with a SOURCE for ALLEGATION of CORRUPTION, NEPOTISM and FAVOURITISM. ................. So the present CRISIS in SENIOR JUDICIAL LEVEL who are part of the COLLEGIUM for appointing Judges of SC and HC may NOT be FULLY due to "RIGHTFUL INDIGNATION". ...................... All efforts to change the absolute power enjoyed by SC JUDGES to APPOINT HC and SC JUDGES were REJECTED by SC JUDGES THEMSELVES including the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act and the 99th Cons utional Amendment passed by the Indian Parliament.
      1. vilya2010
        Jan 12, 2018 at 6:35 pm
        India is presenting novel dramas which India has not seen in the past
        1. InformationTechnologyVision DWCLLC
          Jan 12, 2018 at 6:28 pm
          Well Done this is the right way to preserve our democracy system. Dr. Ambedakar .. Nehru jee .. Gandhi jee ... Moulana Azad these are not stupids to keep indian hindustan as democracy. Since from 2014 our democracy in danger and this present Government want to throw the democract system into dust bin just to gain thier upper hand and Modi is dreaming for another time PM of India which is not possible. Daily basis from 2014 innonence dalits and muslims and every were jungle raj is running again mafia started killing in UP... Rajisthan .. Bihar from last four months ... And this CJI blind eye accepting all the government propersals blindly by overtepping the democract system.. Jai Hind
          1. Prakash Yadav
            Jan 12, 2018 at 6:05 pm
            JUST SEE AN EXAMPLE HOW ONE OF THE JUDGES HAVE GIVEN JUDGEMENT WHICH REFLECTS THEIR integrity to justice. Award granted as per arbitral provisions of MSMED Act and upheld by two appellant courts below, to ensure delayed payment of 127 months with penal interest is set aside by order in CA 5150/17, the amount partially delivered has been ordered to be paid back, because matter of delayed pymnt ought to have been pursued before the DRT itself from whom the amount was due and not before MSMEDF Council. Honble justice relied on misleading evidence, knowing that it is by perjury, then heavily relied on order in 25/7 which was by re agitation, and re litigation of order dated 12.6.2007, then extensively relied on an order dated 25.3.2009 which was already dismissed on 13.7.2011 in appeal 8/9.then facts that appeal is not from a legal en y in the eyes of law, is without depositing 75 mandatory deposit, that pe ioner has committed contempt right in face of court were totally ignored.
            1. Prakash Yadav
              Jan 12, 2018 at 6:09 pm
              such judges are themselves a blot on judiciary in India and cannot be relied on what they say. they could have agitated their grievance before the president or the parliament rather than going in press.
              1. surya316
                Jan 12, 2018 at 6:45 pm
                The President is a BJP man and the parliament has a BJP majority and this pe ion of the senior most judges of the Supreme Court raises the question that the Chief Justice of India may be a BJP man too..the people have a right to know all this and these judges are rightly serving the people first and not their political masters which is what you seem to be pissed about.
            2. Load More Comments