Supreme Court Closes Plea Challenging Center's Initial Refusal To Elevate Justice KM Joseph

The Supreme Court today closed a petition challenging the Centre's refusal to accept the Supreme Court Collegium's recommendation to elevate Justice KM Joseph. The Collegium had recommended the names of Justice Joseph and Senior Advocate Indu Malhotra for elevation to the Apex Court on January 10, 2018. However, in April, 2018 the Centre appointed Justice Malhotra as a Judge of the Apex Court, while ignoring the recommendation for elevation of Justice Joseph.

The petition challenged the Center's decision on the ground that the Centre cannot segregate the names recommended by a group of five most senior judges constituting the Collegium, without its approval.

The Petition that was settled by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal was filed in the year 2018. Justice Joseph's elevation to Apex Court happened in August 2018. A Bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha closed the matter today since it became infructuous.   

"The issue involves a larger question of law to be considered. Come in another petition", said the CJI while disposing of the petition. 

Justice KM Joseph is set to retire from the Supreme Court on June 17, 2023. Justice Indu Malhotra on her appointment to the Apex Court on April 27, 2018, became the first woman to be elevated directly from the Bar to the Supreme Court.

The petition was filed by a retired district judge GD Inamdar, who alleged that the Centre "unilaterally and capriciously segregated and rejected the name of Hon'ble Justice K.M. Joseph", which according to him was illegal and arbitrary.

The plea deals with the grounds, which according to the petitioner, were taken by the Centre to deny elevation to Justice Joseph. The first ground was Justice Joseph's seniority among High Court Chief Justices and the second was that the Kerala High Court, which is Justice Joseph's parent High Court, had sufficient representation in the Apex Court and there was a need for regional representation of other High Courts. As per the plea, the third reason was that the Supreme Court has not had representation from the SC/ST community is a long time.

On the second reason the plea read, “The second reason given on the representation from the same High Court which is ‘comparatively a small court’ is irrational inasmuch as the Kerala High Court, with a sanctioned strength of 47 judges is by no means a comparatively small High Court”.

“The Petitioner herein is aggrieved by the shocking manner in which the Central Government has unilaterally and capriciously segregated and rejected the name of Hon’ble Justice K.M. Joseph - recommended by the Collegium for appointment as a Judge of this Hon'ble Court, while at the same time accepting the recommendation for elevation of Ms. Indu Malhotra, Senior Advocate, as a Judge of this Hon’ble Court”, the plea further read.

Furthermore, it was alleged that “…the so called reasons for non approval of Justice KM Joseph‟s name by the Central Govt for elevation to this Hon'ble Court are mere excuses, as those alleged reasons were not an impediment for the Central Govt, in examples of other Judges, who were similarly elevated to this Hon'ble Court”.

While on the third ground, the petition stated, “the ground of SC/ST representation is a farce in so much as the Supreme Court currently has 7 vacancies and the same will rise to 9 by July this year and further rise to 12 by the end of this year. Stalling the elevation of Justice K.M Joseph in no way prevents the Collegium from recommending any SC/ST judge, if it deems fit in its wisdom. The ground for an SC/ST judge cannot be used as ex post facto ground to “reject” the recommendation of the Collegium”.

Cause Title: G.D Inamdar v. Union of India Ministry of Law and Justice