Govt returns SC collegium proposal on Justice Joseph, says his elevation not 'appropriate'

Agencies
April 26, 2018

New Delhi, Apr 26: In a fresh confrontation with the judiciary, the government on Thursday told the Supreme Court collegium to reconsider its proposal to appoint Uttarakhand high court chief justice KM Joseph to the top court, saying the elevation may not be "appropriate".

The government received immediate support from the collegium head, Chief Justice Dipak Misra, who said the executive was well within its rights  to reject Justice Joseph's name while accepting the second name even though both were recommended for elevation together by the collegium. The names of Malhotra and Justice Joseph were recommended by the collegium in January.

In a letter to Justice Misra, union law minister Ravi Shankar Prasad said the government's rejection of Justice Joseph's name has approval of the President and the Prime Minister and also flagged that the SCs/STs have no representation in the Supreme Court since long.

"The proposed appointment of ... Joseph as a Judge of the Supreme Court at this stage does not appear to be appropriate," Prasad said in the letter. "It would also not be fair and justified to other more senior, suitable and deserving Chief Justices and senior judges of various High Courts."

In theory, the collegium can still reject the government's proposal and re-send Justice Joseph's name to the law ministry, which can then decide the future action.

The government's opposition to Justice Joseph's elevation is likely to deepen the rift between the executive and the judiciary.

In a ruling in 2016, Justice Joseph had cancelled President's rule in Uttarakhand and brought back to power the then Congress government of Harish Rawat in the state. The judgement was seen at that time as a major setback to the BJP-ruled government at the Centre.

The government's decision against Justice Joseph's elevation evoked sharp reactions with the Supreme Court Bar Association President terming it as "disturbing" and the main opposition party, Congress, asserting that the independence of the judiciary "is in danger" and asking if it would now speak in one voice that "enough is enough".

Meanwhile, the apex court rejected a plea of senior advocate Indira Jaisingh to stay the warrant of apointment of Malhotra.

Notification announcing the appointment of Malhotra was issued this morning by the department of justice in the law ministry.

"... the government has been constrained to segregate the recommendation of the Supreme Court ... such segregation of proposals has been done in many cases earlier, which include appointment of judges to various HCs and even the SC in the interest of expeditious action on appointments," Prasad told Justice Misra.

In June 2014, the then Chief Justice of India R M Lodha had written to the government making it clear that the executive cannot segregate recommendations without prior approval of the collegium. This had happened when the government had had decided against elevating senior lawyer and former solicitor general Gopal Subramanium to the Supreme Court, while accepting other recommendations of the collegium, a group of senior most judges of the Supreme Court that decides on appointment of the apex court judges.

But in the meantime, Subramanium withdrew his consent to be recommended for the judgeship.

In his six-page letter this morning, Union minister Prasad said in the all-India high court judges seniority list, Justice Joseph is placed at serial number 42.

"There are presently 11 chief justices of various high courts who are senior to him in the all-India high court judges seniority list," he said.

Out of a sanctioned strength of 1079 judges, the 24 HCs have 669 judges.

Noting that the parent high court of Justice Joseph, the Kerala high court, has adequate representation in the Supreme Court and other high courts, Prasad said the high courts of Calcutta, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Jharkhand, Jammu and Kashmir, Uttarakhand, Sikkim, Maniur and Meghalaya have no representation in the top court.

"It may be relevant to mention here that there is no representation of SCs/STs in the Supreme Court since long," the letter read.

Quoting two Supreme Court judgements, the letter also said that senior HC judges should entertain hopes of elevation to the SC and the CJI and the collegium should bear this in mind.

While recommending the name of Justice Joseph for the top court, the collegium had said that he is "more deserving and suitable in all respects than other chief justices and senior puisne judges of high courts for being appointed as judge of the Supreme Court of India".

The collegium had taken into consideration combined seniority on all-India basis of chief justices and senior puisne judges of high courts, apart from their merit and integrity, the body of top five judges of the Supreme Court had said.

But government sources said the "campaign" to project Justice Joseph as a victim of the order was "disturbing". "It is baseless ... Justice J S Khehar struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act. He was appointed as the CJI," they pointed out.  

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
August 7,2020

Kottayam, Aug 7: A trial court in Kottayam on Friday granted bail to Bishop Franco Mulakkal, accused of raping a nun in Kerala, with stringent conditions and directed him to be present on the dates of hearing of the case.

The Additional Sessions Court had cancelled the bail granted to the Bishop on July 13 for failing to appear for the trial and issued a Non Bailable Warrant against him.

Mulakkal was present in the Court on Friday when it considered the matter.

Granting bail, the court directed him not to leave the state till the chargesheet is read out to him on August 13 and to be present in court on the dates of hearing of the case.

The Court also directed him to offer fresh sureties and bail bonds.

On July 13, Mulakkal’s counsel had informed the court that his client could not appear as he had been in self quarantine due to his primary contact with a COVID-19 infected person.

The next day, the former Jalandhar Bishop had tested positive for coronavirus.

The prosecution informed the Court that Mulakkal had not produced the COVID negative certificate, to which the Court observed that the state Health Department can take necessary action on this issue.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday had directed Mulakkal to face trial as it dismissed his plea seeking discharge in the rape case lodged against him by the nun belonging to a congregation under Jalandhar diocese, saying there was no merit in his petition.

A bench of Chief Justice S A Bobde, A S Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian had told the counsel for Bishop that the court is not saying anything on merit, but is dismissing the plea on the issue of discharge from the case.

Mulakkal, in his plea had challenged the July 7 Kerala High Court order, dismissing his discharge plea in the rape case filed by the nun.

The High Court had asked the deposed Bishop of Jalandhar diocese to stand for trial in the rape case, which was registered on the basis of a complaint filed by the nun.

The senior priest of the Roman Catholic Church had filed the revision petition following the dismissal of his discharge plea by a trial court in March this year.

The rape case against the Bishop was registered by police in Kottayam district.

In her complaint to the police in June, 2018, the nun had alleged that she was subjected to sexual abuse by the bishop during the period between 2014 and 2016.

The bishop, who was arrested by the Special Investigation team, which probed the case, charged him with wrongful confinement, rape, unnatural sex and criminal intimidation.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
June 18,2020

New Delhi, Jun 18: The Delhi High Court Thursday asked the Delhi Police to file status report on a plea by Jamia Coordination Committee member Safoora Zargar, who was arrested under the anti-terror law --UAPA -- seeking bail in a case related to communal violence in northeast Delhi during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act in February.

Zargar, M Phil student of Jamia Millia Islamia University, is more than four months pregnant.

Justice Rajiv Shakdher issued notice to the police and asked it to file a status report on the bail plea.

The high court listed the matter for further hearing on June 22.

Zargar, who was arrested by the Special Cell of Delhi Police on April 10, has challenged the June 4 order of the trial court denying her bail in the case.

The trial court, in its order, had said “when you choose to play with embers, you cannot blame the wind to have carried the spark a bit too far and spread the fire.”

It had said that during the course of investigation a larger conspiracy was discernible and if there was prima evidence of conspiracy, acts and statements made by any one of the conspirators, it is admissible against all.

The court had said that even if there was no direct act of violence attributable to the accused (Zargar), she cannot shy away from her liability under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

However, the trial court had asked the concerned jail superintendent to provide adequate medical aid and the assistance to Zargar.

The police had earlier claimed that Zargar allegedly blocked a road near Jaffrabad metro station during the anti-CAA protests and instigated people that led to the riots in the area.

It further claimed that she was allegedly part of the “premediated conspiracy” to incite communal riots in northeast Delhi in February.

Communal clashes had broken out in northeast Delhi on February 24 after violence between citizenship law supporters and protesters spiralled out of control leaving at least 53 people dead and scores injured.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
July 18,2020

Washington, Jul 18: The government of India has agreed to allow US air carriers to resume passenger services in the US-India market starting July 23, the US Transportation Department said on Friday.

The Indian government, citing the coronavirus, had banned all scheduled services, prompting the US Transportation Department in June to accuse India of engaging in "unfair and discriminatory practices" on charter air carriers serving India.

The Transportation Department said it was withdrawing an order it had issued requiring Indian air carriers to apply for authorization prior to conducting charter flights, and said it had approved an Air India application for passenger charter flights between the United States and India.

A group representing major US airlines and the Indian Embassy in Washington did not immediately comment on Friday.

India's Ministry of Civil Aviation said on Twitter it was moving to "further expand our international civil aviation operations" and arrangements from some flights "with US, UAE, France & Germany are being put in place while similar arrangements are also being worked out with several other countries."

"Under this arrangement," it added, "airlines from the concerned countries will be able to operate flights from & to India along with Indian carriers."

The US Transportation Department order was set to take effect next week. The Trump administration said in June it wanted "to restore a level playing field for US airlines" under the US-India Air Transport Agreement. The Indian government had banned all scheduled services and failed to approve US carriers for charter operations, it added.

The US government said in June that Air India had been operating "repatriation" charter flights between India and the United States in both directions since May 7.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.