Rethink on Justice elevation, Govt asks SC collegium

New Delhi: In a fresh confrontation with the judiciary, the government on Thursday told the Supreme Court collegium to reconsider its proposal to appoint Uttarakhand High Court Chief Justice K M Joseph to the top court, saying the elevation may not be "appropriate".

The government received immediate support from the collegium head, Chief Justice Dipak Misra, who said the executive was well within its rights to reject Justice Joseph's name while accepting the second name even though both were recommended for elevation together by the collegium. The names of Malhotra and Justice Joseph were recommended by the collegium in January.

In a letter to Justice Misra, Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad said the government's rejection of Justice Joseph's name has approval of the President and the Prime Minister and also flagged that the SCs/STs have no representation in the Supreme Court since long. "The proposed appointment of .... Joseph as a Judge of the Supreme Court at this stage does not appear to be appropriate," Prasad said in the letter.

"It would also not be fair and justified to other more senior, suitable and deserving Chief Justices" and senior judges of various High Courts.  In theory, the collegium can still reject the government's proposal and re-send Justice Joseph's name to the Law Ministry, which can then decide the future action.

The government's opposition to Justice Joseph's elevation is likely to deepen the rift between the executive and the judiciary. In a ruling in 2016, Justice Joseph had cancelled President's rule in Uttarakhand and brought back to power the then Congress government of Harish Rawat in the state. The judgement was seen at that time as a major setback to the BJP-ruled government at the Centre.  

The government's decision against Justice Joseph's elevation evoked sharp reactions with the Supreme Court Bar Association President terming it as "disturbing" and the main opposition party, Congress, asserting that the independence of the judiciary "is in danger" and asking if it would now speak in one voice that "enough is enough".