About the Author
Anjali Gurunath Naik is a member of LJRF and MSF National Constitutional Literacy Mission, Kerala Chapter.
Introduction
Kuttiyal Mathew Joseph referred to as K.M. Joseph was born on 17 th June 1958. Justice K.M.Joseph hails from Kottayam, Kerala, India. He was born to Mrs. Ammini Tharakan and his father , K.K.Mathew was a judge of the Supreme Court of India and was the chairman of the tenth Law Commission. Justice K.M.Joseph was a former judge of the Supreme Court of India retired on 16th June 2023. He was appointed as the Chief Justice of Uttarakhand High Court on 31st July 2014. Formerly, he had served as a judge of Kerala High Court for almost a decade.
Journey As a Judge
On October 14, 2004, he was chosen to serve as a permanent judge for the Kerala High Court. Upon the suggestion of the outgoing Chief Justice of India, Rajendra Mal Lodha, the President of India named Joseph as the new Chief Justice of Uttarakhand on July 18, 2014. He was sworn in as the ninth Chief Justice of the Uttarakhand High Court on July 31, 2014, at Nainital.
The declaration of President’s Rule in the state of Uttarakhand in 2016 by the BJP-led by Narendra Modi administration was overturned by a court panel presided over by Justice Joseph. Justice Joseph ordered the destruction of the Kapico resorts built on Nediathuruthu Island in Alappuzha district while he was a judge at the Kerala High Court.
Notable Contributions
In Immanuel Paul Chakkola v. Catholic Syrian Bank, Shri. K.M. Joseph attempted to convince Justice K Sukumaran that the Catholic Syrian Bank and Dhanalakshmi Bank qualified as states under Article 12 of the Constitution. His thoroughness and industry were evident throughout his career, including his final decision in DN Singh v. Commissioner of Income Tax.
An Amicus Curiae supported the Kerala High Court panel in Mathew Varghese v. Rosamma Varghese, arguing that a Christian father’s duty to support his minor child was an imperfect obligation, not a legally actionable violation, which was later upheld by the Full Bench.Chief Justice Gupta, who addressed the Full Court, went on to say that these outdated precedents were overturned, In India, one of the essential rights is the ability to live in dignity. Being non sui juris, the kid is entitled to protection from the State and the Courts. Naturally, the father is the guardian. He has a responsibility to care for the child. According to Mr. K.M. Joseph, the Indian courts must end the “subtle alien bondage.” We must adhere to ‘natural’ values as opposed to Westminster vintage values. In October 2004, not long after, he was promoted to the Kerala High Court Bench. In July 2014, he was appointed Chief Justice of the Uttarakhand High Court.
The Uttarakhand High Court Judgement
His best moment may have come in Harish Chandra Rawat v. Union of India, where the Chief Minister of the State challenged a Presidential proclamation made in accordance with Article 356 of the Constitution in front of the Uttarakhand High Court.
In 2016, the Congress won a shaky majority in Uttarakhand, controlling 36 seats. Nine Congress MLAs changed allegiance and sent a united representation to Governor Dr. KK Paul, calling for Rawat’s resignation. Legal action against the nine MLAs began, but they filed a petition with the Uttarakhand High Court, requesting the suspension proceedings be postponed.
The Union Cabinet rejected petitioners for dissident MLAs’ relief from the High Court, citing a sting operation film. This undermined the Governor’s decision and the Speaker’s ability to proceed with disqualification procedures. The Supreme Court invalidated a Presidential proclamation, undermining federalism and demonstrating its institutional independence.
Dilemma On Elevation To The Supreme Court
The Supreme Court Collegium approved Justice Joseph’s appointment as a Supreme Court judge on January 11, 2018, citing his suitability and deservingness over other Chief Justices and senior puisne Judges of High Courts. However, the collegium’s recommendation was influenced by differing views on the candidate’s qualifications and experience. Despite the unanimous recommendation, some members were hesitant about the outcome, especially by the then ruling NDA government. A stern dissent letter was written by Judge Jasti Chelameswar of the Supreme Court of India Collegium in February 2017 in opposition to Justice K. M. Joseph’s elevation to the Supreme Court of India. Chelameswar stated, “Justice Joseph is an outstanding jurist with unwavering integrity and the most qualified judge for elevation to the Supreme Court.” He continued in the note, “By not advancing a highly qualified judge like Justice Joseph, the collegium was setting an unhealthy precedent.
The Government’s Letter
The proposed nomination of Justice K. M. Joseph as a Supreme Court judge at that time did not seem acceptable, the government wrote in a letter to the then Chief Justice, Dipak Misra, on April 26, 2018. According to the letter from the Minister of Law and Justice, Ravi Shankar Prasad, Justice K. M. Joseph was at that time ranked 42 on the list of All India High Court Judges by seniority, and 11 Chief Justices of different High Courts were senior to him at the time. In the event that the Collegium called his name again, the government would be required to issue a warrant for his appointment to the Supreme Court.
CJI Dipak Mishra’s Remarks
The Supreme Court Bar Association filed a petition with the Chief Justice to stay the warrant appointing Indu Malhotra as a Supreme Court judge, citing the government’s failure to remove Joseph’s name from controversy and ignoring the collegium’s advice. The Supreme Court refused to postpone Malhotra’s appointment, reaffirming Joseph’s appointment. The opposition was outraged by the government’s unusual action. The Supreme Court Collegium recommended Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice Vineet Saran.
Decision Of The Supreme Court Collegium
The Supreme Court Collegium, presided over by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, reaffirmed on July 16th, 2018, that Justice K M Joseph should be elevated to the Supreme Court. According to the collegium’s resolution, after giving the letters from the Law Minister considerable consideration, nothing in them suggested that Joseph J. was not a good fit.The Supreme Court Collegium recommended Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice Vineet Saran, the Chief Justices of the Madras and Odisha High Courts, respectively, in a separate resolution.
Post Supreme Court Elevation
Justice K.M. Joseph appointed as an apex judge pursued his career sincerely and respectfully post promotion to the Supreme Court. During his Supreme Court tenure, he ruled in six constitutional bench cases, including the Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India election commissioners case, where he urged states and union territories to take suo motu action against hate speech. Dushyant Dave, a Supreme Court lawyer, praised Justice K.M. Joseph’s judicial temperament, stating he possessed qualities like patience, open-mindedness, and tact. However, Dave argued that Joseph should have completed Bilkis Bano’s hearing before retirement and decided during his term.
However, there is lot more he has earned to stand in the respectable position and be admired for his dedication and passion towards his work. Joseph Shine v. Union of India is another one of his notable judgements. However, one of the cases i.e. Karmanaya Singh Sareen v. Union of India a.k.a. whatsapp privacy case could not be heard before his tenure.
Conclusion
Justice K.M.Joseph was a strong advocate of upholding democratic values in the judiciary. He believed that the judiciary should be independent and impartial, and should strive to protect the rights of individuals and minorities. He was one amongst the judges who believed that the judiciary should be accessible to all and should provide just, fair and impartial decisions. Justice K.M Joseph Jaa shown through his decisions in various cases that the judiciary should be free from the influence of the government or any other external forces stating that the decisions made should be based on facts and the law, and should be held accountable for its decisions.
In a democracy, individual judges and the justice system as a whole should be impartial and independent of all external pressures. This is a key to ensure that those who go to court and the wider public have confidence that their cases will be decided fairly and in accordance with the law. The society would only gain their trust if the judicial system acts judiciously and independently with the decisions they arrive at. Most importantly, the decisions must be reasonable and impartial. The decision should not be taken as a matter of retaliation or some other biases but must be purely based on facts and evidence laid before the courts.
References
SERVING CITIZENS Effectiveness and fairness of judicial systems, https://in.search.yahoo.com/. A matter of principle: The tenure of Justice KM Joseph, https://www.barandbench.com/columns/a-matter-of-principle-the-tenure-of-justice-km-joseph
