Jasti Chelameswar
|
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasti Chalameswar |
|
|---|---|
| Judge of the Supreme Court of India | |
|
Assumed office October 10, 2011 |
|
| Appointed by | Pratibha Patil |
| Chief Justice, Kerala High Court | |
|
In office March 17, 2010 – October 9, 2011 |
|
| Preceded by | S. R. Bannurmath |
| Succeeded by | Manjula Chellur |
| Chief Justice, Gauhati High Court | |
|
In office May 2, 2007 – March 17, 2010 |
|
| Personal details | |
| Born |
23 June 1953 Machilipatnam, Krishna dist, Andhra Pradesh, India |
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.
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.
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.
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.”
...
Wikipedia