All the reasons given by the government for its opposition to the elevation of the Chief Justice of the Uttarakhand High Court, Justice K.M. Joseph, to the Supreme Court hide its real intent (“A dangerous incursion”, May 1). The Law Minister, Ravi Shankar Prasad, has been unsuccessfully trying to defend the indefensible by taking cover behind the argument that the Congress has no moral right to criticise the government as it meted out “unfair treatment” to the judiciary, especially during the Emergency. While there is no denying his charges against the Congress, the Minister’s response is also a kind of tacit admission that the present government too believes in having a “committed” judiciary to do its bidding. Nothing can be more damaging to the constitutional fabric than the elevation of judges of the High Court and the Supreme Court on the basis of their support to the ideology and policies of the government of the day. Hopefully, the collegium will reaffirm in one voice its original recommendation.
Gopal Gokul Menon,
Ernakulam
The writer has deployed his legal acumen to demolish the government’s arguments against elevating Justice K.M. Joseph to the Supreme Court. However, what he has avoided discussing is the opaque manner in which the collegium functions. Had the collegium been transparent in explaining, for instance, why certain judges were not considered for elevation, the government would have found it very difficult to block Justice K.M. Joseph’s elevation. It would have also found it difficult if his nomination had been proposed by an independent multi-member body like the National Judicial Appointments Commission. Even if the present impasse is amicably resolved, such instances may recur because there is a conflict of interest when judges appoint judges.
V.N. Mukundarajan,
Thiruvananthapuram
