About the author :
V.M Manukrishna, Member of Ljrf Centre for Constitutional Literacy
A legacy Is Born
On June 17th, 1958, Justice Kuttiyil Mathew Joseph was born in Kochi, Kerala. His secondary schooling came to fruition at Kendriya Vidyalaya schools in Kochi and New Delhi. Subsequently, he enrolled in Loyola College, Chennai and graduated from Government Law College in Ernakulam with a degree in law. After registering as an advocate in 1982, he embarked on the exploration and practice of law at the Delhi High Court.
Fervor Of Law Runs Through His Veins
While Justice Matthew- Justice K.M. Joseph’s father, was chosen as a judge for the Supreme Court in October 1971, Justice Y.V. Chandrachud became a Supreme Court judge in August 1972. They jointly served as Justices for four years till Justice Matthew’s retirement in January 1976.
His Advocacy Genesis
Following this, in the year 1983, he moved his practise to the High Court of Kerala where he focused on civil and constitutional law. In the instance of Mathew Varghese v. Rosamma Varghese (2003) before the Kerala High Court, where the Court held that even an interfaith marriage would guarantee the resulting child being entitled to maintenance, Justice K.M. Joseph’s proficiency in civil litigation was relied upon.
Prowess As Judge
Prior to being named Chief Justice of the Uttarakhand High Court in July 2014, Justice Joseph served as a permanent judge of the Kerala High Court for over a decade beginning in October 2004. Justice Joseph halted the implementation of the Presidential Rule in Uttarakhand while serving as Chief Justice of the Uttarakhand High Court in 2016. Before the High Court could issue a ruling, the Union perhaps tried to force the BJP to establish the government. The proficient judge rendered an imposing judgement that gave the Congress faction the reins of authority and chastised the Union Government’s behaviour. He further referred to the supposed Union efforts as a travesty of justice.
The Supreme Court Collegium suggested Justices Indu Malhotra and K.M. Joseph for appointment as SC judges in January, 2018. Although Justice Malhotra’s nomination was approved by the Union government, Justice Joseph’s name was turned down. The Union cited a number of reasons for this denial, namely that he was not as senior as other High Court judges, the Kerala High Court was overrepresented in the Supreme Court and that judges from other High Courts were underrepresented. The collegium, nevertheless, sent Justice Joseph’s apt suggestion to the Union once again after reaffirming it. After being reiterated, the suggestion was approved, and on August 8th, 2018, Justice Joseph was promoted to the Apex Court.
Judgement Craved In Stone
In Bikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab (2020), a three-judge bench constituting Justices R.F. Nariman, Navin Sinha and K.M. Joseph determined that an accused person has a basic right to be freed on default bail. 22 people were hurt and three individuals died when the accused, Bikramjit Singh, hurled a hand grenade into a public space. The judge denied the petition on the grounds that he had increased the period of incarceration from ninety to one hundred eighty days in accordance with Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, after the defendant had requested bail after serving 90 days in custody. The Criminal Procedure Code does not alone protect the liberty of default bail and this fact was clearly noted by the Court. According to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, it is a component of the right to life and personal liberty.
Along with Justices Nariman and Aniruddha Bose, Justice Joseph was a member of the three-judge bench in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh (2020). In this particular case, a Special Leave Petition was submitted to ascertain the situation regarding the setup of video surveillance equipment in police stations around the nation and the creation of a Central Oversight Body to monitor the equipment’s placement. The Court ordered all states as well as union territories to make it possible for CCTV cameras to be installed in police stations and to provide reports detailing compliance. The law enforcement stations must have the necessary amenities, such as ample broadband and camera archives. The Bench stated that this was required whenever there is evidence that abuse at police stations resulting in catastrophic injuries and/or custodial deaths, it is crucial for individuals be empowered to lodge a complaint for a remedy of the same. This was done to put a stop to custodial violence. The Bench also declared that its recommendations supported Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Justices U.U. Lalit and K.M. Joseph considered whether the length of time under “house arrest” ought to be taken into account for providing “default bail” as per Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, in the case of Gautam Navlakha v. National Investigation Agency (2021). When the charge sheet has not been submitted by the police or investigatory agency within 90 days following the suspect’s detention by the authorities, default bail is issued. In accordance with the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of 1967, Gautam Navlakha was detained for purportedly encouraging the Bhima Koregaon riots in conjunction with other activists. He was ordered under house arrest for 34 days in August 2018 by the Delhi High Court. The Delhi High Court was not aiming for the house arrest to qualify as jail sentence, therefore, it wouldn’t contribute towards the time limit for default bail. Thus, the Court decided in answer to Navlakha’s request for default bail.
