Who is Kuttiyil Mathew Joseph?

On January 10, the Supreme Court Collegium, led by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, recommended Uttarakhand High Court Chief Justice Kuttiyil Mathew Joseph for appointment as judge of the Supreme Court. His name was paired with Indu Malhotra, the first woman lawyer to be recommended directly to the court.

What changed?

After three months, the government cleared Ms. Malhotra’s name and returned Justice Joseph’s name on the ground that he was too junior among High Court judges to be elevated to the Supreme Court and his State — Kerala — is over-represented. Thereafter, the Collegium has met thrice to discuss Justice Joseph and agreed “in principle” that his name be reiterated and his elevation made binding on the government. But it has actually not gone about doing it.

Legal experts have raised a question that if the Collegium unanimously agrees that Justice Joseph’s file needs to be returned to the government, why is it delaying its response? On May 16, the Collegium deferred its decision, saying it intends to send his name along with other names.

Why a career in law?

If appointed, the 60-year-old Justice Joseph would have a five-year tenure. He is the son of Justice K.K. Mathew, a former judge of the Supreme Court, who is known for his judgments. Justice Mathew was also the Chairperson of the Tenth Law Commission. Justice Joseph, a native of Kochi, completed his law course at Government Law College, Ernakulam. After practising as an advocate in the Kerala High Court, he was appointed as a judge in October 2004. There, he ordered the demolition of the illegally constructed Kapico resorts on a private island in Alappuzha.

Justice Joseph was appointed the ninth Chief Justice of the Uttarakhand High Court in July 2014 on the recommendation of the Collegium, led by the then Chief Justice of India R.M. Lodha. He quashed the March 27, 2016, proclamation of President’s rule in Uttarakhand, paving the way for the restoration of the Congress government.

How did he rise?

The Collegium’s January 10 resolutiondescribes Justice Joseph as “more deserving and suitable in all respects” to be appointed as Supreme Court judge than other judges in the High Courts. The respect for Justice Joseph as an independent-minded judge and the concern for judicial independence came to the fore when 100 lawyers approached the court against de-linking Justice Joseph’s file and giving the go-ahead to Ms. Malhotra.

The government has time and again denied that the reason for its refusal to have Justice Joseph as a Supreme Court judge is his judgment quashing President's rule in Uttarakhand. Can the government reject a judge’s elevation just because his verdict was not “palatable” to the executive, senior advocate Indira Jaising asked the Chief Justice’s Bench in open court.

What does the future hold?

Legal experts consider the government’s decision an affront to judicial independence. First, this can be done only with the knowledge and consent of the Collegium. In 2014, faced with a similar situation in senior advocate Gopal Subramanium’s case, the then Chief Justice, R.M. Lodha, had written to Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad, saying: “In future, such a procedure of unilateral segregation should not be adopted by the Executive.” For now, the Collegium has to reiterate its recommendation. But the court has closed for summer vacation and Justice Chelameswar, who had written to Chief Justice Misra backing Justice Joseph’s case, retires on June 22. A Collegium may convene after the court reopens on July 2 with a new member, Justice A.K. Sikri.