Collegium defers KM Joseph J elevation; next meeting to be held “at the earliest”

Collegium defers KM Joseph J elevation; next meeting to be held “at the earliest”

As reported earlier, the Supreme Court Collegium has once again deferred its decision to reiterate the name of Justice KM Joseph, and has put off recommending other judges for elevation to the apex court to a later date.

The decision has been deferred in light of the fact that the five senior most judges of the Supreme Court are still considering potential appointees. The resolution of the May 16 meeting states,

“Today, in the meeting of the Collegium, a unanimous view was expressed that there should be further deliberation and broad-based consideration of the names of the Chief Justices as well as Judges of the High Courts which are at present not represented in the Supreme Court. In view of the above, the meeting stands deferred to be held at the earliest.”

In its earlier meeting on May 11, the Collegium had revealed its unanimous agreement on the reiteration of Justice Joseph’s name for elevation, though a formal resolution to that effect is yet to be made.

With the retirements of Justice RK Agrawal earlier this month and Justice Jasti Chelameswar, whose last working day was today, the strength of the Supreme Court stands at 23, as against a sanctioned strength of 31 judges. The latter’s retirement will also effect a change in the composition of the Collegium, with Justice AK Sikri to come on board in his place.

The Collegium had first recommended the name of Justice KM Joseph for elevation to Supreme Court along with the name of Justice Indu Malhotra, on January 10 this year.

After more than three months, the Centre cleared the file of Indu Malhotra and notified her appointment to the Supreme Court on April 26.

However, it refused to clear Justice Joseph’s file, sending it back to the Collegium with a 6-page explanatory note on why it did not want him to be elevated to Supreme Court.

This had led to a huge outcry, with many in the legal fraternity alleging that the Centre did so because of a judgment rendered by Justice Joseph, by which he struck down the President rule in the State of Uttarakhand.

Read the resolution:

Attachment
PDF
2018_May16_Minutes-SC-watermark.pdf
Preview
Bar and Bench - Indian Legal news
www.barandbench.com