The Union government has taken a stand against the elevation Chief Justice of Uttarakhand High Court K.M. Joseph on seemingly silly grounds.
This raises suspicion that the government’s stand is politically motivated, an approach that could prove dangerous for judiciary’s independence.
What were the stated reasons for turning down the appointment?
The government has given out two broad reasons for freezing the elevation of Justice K.M. Joseph to the Supreme Court.
Seniority - Government has stated that Justice Joseph is too junior in the all-India list of High court judges, and 11 Chief Justices ranked above him.
But seniority is not the sole consideration while elevating a High Court judge to the apex court and multiple other factors are factored in.
In fact, there have been multiple instances were senior judges have been overlooked in favour of a more deserving candidate of outstanding merit.
Proportionality – It has been asserted that there are regional imbalances in the Supreme Court as Kerala is disproportionately better represented.
Kerala already has 1 judge in the Supreme Court and it has been stated that a 2nd judge from there would make the region over-represented.
This is again a false notion as Kerala has in the past had as many as 3 judges in the apex court and other regions like Maharashtra are also over-represented.
While it is desirable that regional imbalances are not glaring, this is not a valid ground in the current case, as the situation is not overly skewed.
What are the suspicions?
Justice Joseph in his capacity as a Chief Justice of the Uttarakhand High Court had delivered a verdict that lifted president’s rule in Uttarakhand.
This restored the Congress government headed by “Harish Rawat”, which was earlier suspended on seemingly frivolous grounds.
Some suspect that this had annoyed the Modi government and it is now extracting its vengeance by denying Justice Joseph his deserved promotion.
Such an action could be a disaster to judiciary’s independent functioning and might lead to rampant politicisation of jurists.
The fact that Justice Joseph’s career seems impeccable thus far only adds fuel to the suspicion that the current episode has been triggered due to politics.
What is the way ahead?
Present Case - Silly factor should not be made to shoot down the candidature of a person otherwise qualified and validly recommended.
As the collegium has already vouched strongly for Mr. Joseph’s credentials, it is likely that his name would be recommended again.
Convention mandates the union government to accept the names that are recommended again (despite their objections).
Hence, it would be prudent for the government clear Justice Joseph’s appointment (if recommended again) and put an end to the controversy.
Overall - There is a strong perception, that the government is much too slow when it comes to approving judicial appointments.
A conflict between the judiciary and the executive over particular appointments is not in the public interest.
To evolve a sustained solution, the government needs to finalise the “Memorandum of Procedure” (MoP) for appointments, which is long overdue.
