The Indian Panorama

Tag: Justice KM Joseph

  • Supreme Court disapproves of Amit Shah’s statement on scrapping of 4pc Muslim quota in Karnataka

    Supreme Court disapproves of Amit Shah’s statement on scrapping of 4pc Muslim quota in Karnataka

    NEW DELHI (TIP): The Supreme Court on Tuesday disapproved of senior BJP leader and Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s statement on scrapping the four per cent quota for Muslims in government jobs and educational institutions in poll-bound Karnataka, saying a sub-judice issue should not be politicized.

    A Bench of Justice KM Joseph, Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice A Amanullah said public functionaries should exercise caution in their statements about issues pending before courts.

    “When the matter is pending before the court and there is a court order on Karnataka Muslim quota, then there should not be any political statements on the issue. It’s not appropriate. Some sanctity needs to be maintained,” it noted. The top court was hearing petitions challenging the Karnataka government’s decision to scrap four per cent reservation for Muslims under OBC category in government jobs and educational institutions and distribute it equally to Vokkaligas and Lingayats in the state.

    The comments from the Bench came after senior counsel Dushyant Dave, representing the petitioners, raised the issue and said every day the Union Home Minister was making statements on the issue which amounted to contempt of court. “They (BJP leaders) are proudly saying they have withdrawn (quota for Muslims),” Dave told the Bench. “If what you are saying is true, then we wonder why when the matter is sub-judice before the Supreme Court, there should be statements made by anybody as such?” Justice Nagarathna commented.

    Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Karnataka Government, objected to Dave’s submission, saying the Bench had not been told about the “content and context” of Shah’s statement.

    “I don’t wish to do politics here. He (Dave) may move an application. We don’t know what statement is being attributed to (Shah),” Mehta said, asserting any religion-based reservation was unconstitutional even as he maintained “We understand and respect the sentiment of the court.”

    “Solicitor General making a statement in the court is not a problem but someone saying anything on a sub-judice matter outside the court is not appropriate…In 1971, the West Bengal CM was held for contempt for holding a press conference defending a rationing order that was the subject matter of a challenge before the court…”We may have reservations about reservations but we can’t let it be politicized in this manner…,” said Justice Joseph.

    “I can’t respond to political [allegations] … I can’t shout like my learned friend (Dave)…,” Mehta said, adding the matter was being politicized before the court.

    As Dave interjected to say, “This was not religion based,” Mehta said, “Lordships will have to control (Dave). Can’t let this become a fish market… So far no judge has controlled him…That’s the problem…Some judge will have to.

    “Some sanity must prevail… There is no such statement (by Shah) to my knowledge. But in the (election) manifesto one is entitled… Even I can’t be instructed as to how to argue in a vitiated atmosphere,” Mehta went on.

    At one point, Justice Joseph asked Dave not to shout and make political statements in the court.

    The Bench deferred the hearing to July 25 after the Solicitor General said he was busy with the Constitution Bench hearing on the same sex marriage issue. However, he assured the top court that the earlier reservation regime would continue till the next date of hearing. Dave said he will file an application and bring it on record the statements being made on the matter. As Central Muslim Association’s counsel wanted the top court to restrain the press from publishing such speeches, Mehta asserted that media can’t be censored like this. After the Karnataka Government’s March 27 decision – that came weeks before the May 10 assembly elections, Muslims will be eligible to vie for 10 per cent reservation under the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) category while the four per cent quota enjoyed by them for three decades stood distributed equally between Veerashaiva-Lingayats and Vokkaligas – considered to be numerically dominant and politically influential communities in the state. The Supreme Court had on April 13 questioned the Karnataka government’s decision to scrap the four per cent reservation for Muslims under OBC category in government jobs and educational institutions, saying prima facie it appeared to be based on “fallacious assumptions”.

  • Collegium junks objections to Kirpal’s appointment: Reiterates names for appointment in Madras, Bombay High Courts

    Collegium junks objections to Kirpal’s appointment: Reiterates names for appointment in Madras, Bombay High Courts

    NEW DELHI (TIP): In a fresh round of confrontation with the Centre, the Supreme Court Collegium has rejected the Centre’s objections to the proposed elevation of senior advocate Saurabh Kirpal, an openly gay person, as a judge of the Delhi High Court and reiterated its recommendations for four other appointments.

    Maintaining that Kirpal’s appointment would “add value to the Bench and provide inclusion and diversity,” the Collegium has reiterated its November 11, 2021, recommendation for his appointment.

    “The fact that Mr Saurabh Kirpal has been open about his orientation is a matter which goes to his credit. As a prospective candidate for judgeship, he has not been surreptitious about his orientation. In view of the constitutionally recognized rights which the candidate espouses, it would be manifestly contrary to the constitutional principles laid down by the Supreme Court to reject his candidature on that ground,” a three-judge Collegium led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said.

    Brushing aside the IB reports, the Collegium reiterated its recommendations for appointment of advocate R John Sathyam as a judge of the Madras High Court and advocate Somasekhar Sundaresan as a judge of the Bombay High Court. Sathyan had posted certain material on social media, including one critical of the PM, while Sundaresan was “selectively critical” on social media on important policies, initiatives and directions of the government. “Expression of views by a candidate does not disentitle him to hold a constitutional office so long as the person proposed for judgeship is a person of competence, merit and integrity,” said the three-member Collegium – which also includes Justice SK Kaul and Justice KM Joseph.

    It made a second reiteration of its recommendation to elevate advocates Amitesh Banerjee and Sakya Sen as judges of the Calcutta High Court.

    “…after the Supreme Court Collegium reiterated the proposal on 01 September 2021, it was not open to the Department (of Justice) to repeatedly send back the same proposal which has been reiterated by the Supreme Court Collegium after duly considering the objections of the government,” it said regarding the recommendations for two appointments to the Calcutta High Court.

    The Delhi High Court Collegium had on October 13, 2017, unanimously recommended Kirpal – son of former CJI BN Kirpal – for elevation to the Bench and it was approved by the Supreme Court Collegium on November 11, 2021. However, the Law Ministry sent back the recommendation to the Collegium on November 25, 2022, for reconsideration, raising objections about his partner being a Swiss national and his sexual orientation.

    Noting that Kirpal possessed “competence, integrity and intellect”, the Collegium said his “conduct and behavior have been above board. The Collegium said, “…it needs to be noted that the decisions of the Constitution Bench of this court have established the constitutional position that every individual is entitled to maintain their own dignity and individuality, based on sexual orientation.” The Collegium, however, said it may have been advisable for the candidate (Kirpal) not to speak to the press regarding the reasons which may have weighed in the recommendations of the Collegium being sent back for reconsideration

    In a letter dated April 1, 2021, the Law Minister had said: “Though homosexuality stands de-criminalized in India, nonetheless same-sex marriage still remains bereft of recognition either in codified statutory law or uncodified personal law in India”. Moreover, it had been stated that the candidate’s “ardent involvement and passionate attachment to the cause of gay rights” would not rule out the possibility of bias and prejudice.”

    (With inputs from TNS and PTI)