Elevation To SC Not Enough, Give Justice Joseph Seniority: SC Judges On Collision Course With Centre

Even after the Centre relented to a persistent Collegium and decided to elevate Justice K M Joseph to the Supreme Court (SC), the controversy over his appointment seems to be far from over.

A group of Supreme Court (SC) judges are reportedly up in arms against the Centre for what they see as an attempt to alter the seniority of Uttarakhand High Court (HC) Chief Justice Joseph and are likely to meet Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra on Monday (6 August) over the issue.

The judges are upset that the Presidential notification listed Justice Joseph at number three in terms of seniority which apparently makes him the junior most judge of the top court when he will be administered oath. Madras HC Chief Justice Indira Banerjee is at the top of the list followed by Orissa HC Chief Justice Vineet Saran.

Justice Joseph’s name was first recommended by the Collegium on 10 January this year. However, in an unprecedented move, the Centre had sent back his name to the Collegium for reconsideration pointing to Justice Joseph’s lack of seniority and Kerala already having a representation in the SC bench even as several states have no presence.

The Collegium however reiterated its decision to recommend Justice Joseph on 16 July. Additionally it recommended the appointment of Justices Banerjee and Justice Saran to Supreme Court.

According to legal commentary website Bar and Bench, the process of determining seniority at the Supreme Court is still not clearly defined and is governed more by convention than any written rule.

The easiest answer for the Central government, however, is to point at seniority based on appointment to the respective High Courts.

Justice Indira Banerjee became a judge of the HC on 5 February, 2002 while Justice Vineet Saran was appointed to the HC on 14 February, 2002. Justice K M Joseph however, was elevated to the HC only on 14 October, 2004.

Given the lack of procedural clarity, the Centre can easily defend its decision by contending that seniority was decided based on the date of elevation to the HC as is the established principle.