Joseph has been placed third among 3 recently elevated judges despite being recommended by collegium before the other two.
New Delhi: The controversy surrounding Justice K.M. Joseph, who was recently elevated to the Supreme Court after a protracted delay, refuses to die down. There is now disquiet in the higher judiciary over what is being viewed as alleged manipulation of seniority, of the newly appointed Supreme Court judges, by the Narendra Modi government.
The Centre’s notification appointing the three new judges, issued on 3 August, had listed the order of seniority as thus — Justices Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran and K.M. Joseph. The three judges will be sworn in as Supreme Court judges on 7 August in the order of seniority listed above.
This despite Banerjee and Saran, chief justices of Madras High Court and Orissa High Court respectively, being recommended for elevation on 16 July, a full six months after Justice Joseph, the chief justice of the Uttarakhand High Court, received approval of the Supreme Court collegium.
As per settled law and procedure, Joseph should have been given precedence over the other two since his name was recommended earlier.
Troubled by the break in norms, a majority of the apex court judges are upset over what they say is “blatant interference by the government.”
Collegium to meet CJI
Speaking to ThePrint, a senior Supreme Court judge said the collegium was planning to meet Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra to register its disapproval over the government’s latest move.
“Justice Joseph’s name was first sent in January. When the Centre returned his file, the collegium consciously decided to reiterate his name. This was not a new decision,” the top court judge said. “By virtue of the order of suggestion, Justice Joseph should be sworn in first, before Justices Banerjee and Saran, who were recommended at least six months after Joseph,” he added.
The judge further revealed that a majority of the judges share his view. They are “shocked about this” and “disturbed” over the Centre’s interference and are troubled over what they perceive as the “prestige” of the judiciary that is at stake, he said.
Controversy over Justice Joseph
Over the past six months, the judiciary has been embroiled in a crisis unlike any other. It has been at loggerheads with the government particularly over the Centre stalling appointments in the judiciary.
The most prominent of these cases was the elevation of Justice Joseph to the Supreme Court. It triggered a constitutional crisis and has created the perception that the rift between the government and the judiciary has hit its lowest point since the Emergency.
The Supreme Court collegium had first recommended Justice Joseph for elevation to the apex court in January this year. In April, while the Centre elevated senior advocate Indu Malhotra to the top court, it asked the Collegium to reconsider its recommendation of Joseph.
The collegium, however, reiterated Joseph’s appointment when it met on 16 May. The back and forth over Joseph’s file has prompted several amongst the bar and political circles to accuse the Executive of “cherry picking” judges.
There is a perception that the Centre is unhappy with Justice Joseph over a 2016 decision, in which, a bench he led quashed the imposition of President’s Rule in Uttarakhand, paving the way for the Congress government to be reinstated.