News

Breaking: Collegium defers decision on elevation of Justice KM Joseph to Supreme Court

Murali Krishnan

The Supreme Court Collegium headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra has deferred its decision on elevation of Uttarakhand High Court Chief Justice, Justice KM Joseph to Supreme Court.

In the meeting which concluded a few minutes back, the Collegium which also comprises Justices Jasti Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph decided to defer the same.

The minutes of the meeting states:

The Collegium met to consider the following Agenda:

“To reconsider the case of Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph, Chief Justice, Uttarakhand High Court [PHC: Kerala], pursuant to letters dated 26th & 30th April, 2018 received from Ministry of Law & Justice, Government of India and also to consider the names of Judges from Calcutta, Rajasthan, and Telangana & Andhra Pradesh High Courts for elevation as Judges of the Supreme Court, in view of the concept of fair representation.”

Deferred.”

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 this was a payback by the Centre for the judgment by Justice Joseph, striking down Presidential rule in the State of Uttarakhand High Court.

Some lawyers had even mentioned the matter before CJI Dipak Misra and demanded that there should be a stay on the warrant of appointment of Indu Malhotra till the file of Justice Joseph is cleared.

 Read the resolution below. 

Collegium-resolution-on-Justice-KM-Joseph.pdf
Preview

Delhi High Court sends man to jail for a month for threatening court commissioner with gun

Delhi High Court orders retrospective enhancement of Law Researchers' remuneration

Bursting of firecrackers not protected under right to religion: Retired Justice Abhay Oka

Court complaint not necessary for police to lodge FIR under Section 195A IPC for threat to witness: Supreme Court

'Misuse of legal process': Supreme Court rejects appeal filed under NALSA scheme without convict's consent

SCROLL FOR NEXT