The Government has done the right thing by clearing the name of Uttarakhand high court chief justice K M Joseph for the Supreme Court. A needless controversy kicked up by interested parties outside and within the higher judiciary has thus been stilled. Critics ascribed ulterior motives to the delay in okaying the name of Judge Joseph for the SC. Since he had nixed the imposition of President’s rule in Uttarakhand and restored the Congress government in the State, it was suggested that by sitting on his name, the Government was out to teach him a lesson.
Issues of regional and gender representation at the highest levels in the judiciary were sidestepped while the Modi-bashers made the elevation of Judge Joseph a cause célèbre. Even Justice J Chelameswar, since retired, had used the apparent delay in the government nod for Judge Joseph’s appointment to the SC as proof of government intimidation and suppression of the judiciary. Judge Chelameswar, while elevating his own private peeve to the level of institutional honour and dignity, had succeeded in roping in three other senior-most judges of the court to do the unthinkable. Never before in free India had serving judges rebelled against the Chief Justice of India in such a flagrant and undisciplined manner. Unfortunately, sections of the media had unthinkingly bought into their cock and bull story only because it helped them nurse their intrinsic anti-government agenda. Even a stillborn impeachment move against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra had cited his failure to get Judge Joseph’s elevation approved by the Government as one of the charges.
Notably, the Government had not even obliquely rejected the name of Judge Joseph, merely suggesting that a balanced approach in recommendations for the highest court would require various other considerations such as correct regional representation. Once the collegium of five senior-most SC judges reiterated the name of Judge Joseph, the Government willy-nilly felt obliged to clear it. Any further delay would have triggered avoidable tension between the political executive and the judiciary. Contrary to the one-sided narrative in the media, the fact is that the higher judiciary itself has a lot to answer for. If its standing has suffered in the public eye, it is not because of something that others have done or not done but due to its own failure to be correct and to be seen to be correct. For example, the recent recommendations for appointments to various high courts by the collegium have often lacked due diligence. In the latest instance, the Government sent back nearly a dozen names for elevation to the Allahabad high court on the valid ground that these were directly or indirectly related to sitting and/or former judges of the court.
Meanwhile, speculation over succession at the highest level in the apex court when the present incumbent Justice Dipak Misra retires later this year is not healthy for the executive-judiciary relations. Traditionally, the outgoing CJI recommends the name of his successor, which normally is his number two, and the Government grants almost immediate approval. This time, too, Justice Ranjan Gogoi, the senior-most of the ‘rebel’ judges following Judge Chelameswar’s retirement, who had addressed the January press conference against CJI Misra, is most likely to take over from him. Any speculation to the contrary only harms the image of the judiciary and pits it against the Government. Meanwhile, politicians like Ram Vilas Paswan and others of his ilk inflict damage on constitutional institutions by singling out for punishment particular judges on misconstruing intent behind their judgements. Paswan’s demand that the SC judge, since retired, who had ordered precautionary caveats before taking punitive action under the SC/ST law should be removed from the post of chairman, National Green Tribunal, is unreasonable and unlawful. Judges cannot be ascribed motives for their orders. That way, no judge would be able to function independently and fearlessly. Politicians owe it to themselves to behave responsibly in these delicate matters of executive-judiciary relations.
