Centre Should Not Sit Over Reiterated Collegium Recommendations: Justice KM Joseph

Former Supreme Court judge Justice K.M. Joseph has issued a strong appeal to the Central Government, urging it not to delay action on judicial appointments once the Supreme Court Collegium has reiterated its recommendations. Speaking at a lecture commemorating the 250th anniversary of the US Declaration of Independence, organised by the Kerala High Court Bar Association, Justice Joseph called for an end to the discord between the executive and the judiciary over the selection of judges. He also flagged the prolonged pendency of Constitution Bench matters and proposed the establishment of a permanent Constitution Bench in the Supreme Court to tackle the backlog.

Judicial Appointments and the Collegium's Authority

Justice Joseph’s remarks come at a time when the collegium system—upheld by the Supreme Court in the Second and Third Judges Cases—remains a contentious issue between the government and the judiciary. He emphasised that a recommendation reiterated by the collegium is binding on the Centre, and that any delay must only be justified by a “really good and relevant cause” directly related to the appointment. “My appeal is that when the collegium actually makes a recommendation in terms of the Second Judges Case, the Third Judges Case, reiterates the names, let not the Central Government sit over the proposals which are binding on it. It should be understood that they should be appointed unless there is some really good cause which stands in the way and which is germane and relevant to the appointment of the judge,” he said.

The former judge stressed that the collegium’s objective, as laid down in those landmark judgments, was to shield the judiciary from governmental control and to ensure that the “very best” candidates are elevated to the bench. He warned against the short-term thinking of any administration that seeks pliant judges. “Because it will be transient and momentary and foolhardy for any government to think that if you have somebody who will not really question you when you should be questioned, you have won the day. You may have. But what about the great history we have behind us of finest and noblest and most learned judges? The contributions they have made to the framing of our republic, propping it up and where we have reached, the contribution is monumental,” Justice Joseph observed.

Call for Permanent Constitution Bench

Turning to the Supreme Court’s workload, Justice Joseph highlighted alarming figures: 28 main matters are pending before Constitution Benches, with an average pendency of 2,738 days as per the JALDI portal. Eleven cases have been pending for one to five years, six for six to ten years, and more than six cases for over ten years. “My humble and respectful request is that the Supreme Court must have a permanent constitutional bench,” he urged. He suggested that with the current strength of 38 judges, the Court could form a permanent five-judge bench dedicated to resolving pending constitutional questions.

Justice Joseph noted that merely increasing the number of judges may not be a panacea if the inflow of cases is not controlled. “One of the problems which I personally feel is that, with utmost respect, is that, you know, if the inflow of cases are not controlled, because today I am told, from what I could find, about 93,000 cases are pending. You are talking about the highest court of the land. And, you know, I am apprehensive whether, you know, by mere increasing the number of judges, the problem could be solved,” he remarked.

Speedy Disposal of Constitutional Questions

The former judge also expressed concern that crucial constitutional references remain undecided for years. He cited the reference in S.A. Sampath Kumar v. Kale Yadaiah and Others (2016), which asked whether courts could prescribe a timeline for Speakers to decide anti-defection petitions. “Courts in these matters of constitutional importance, they should not allow it, in my view, not beyond a year. Constitution Bench matters should not be kept pending. This will go a long way in deciding so many other matters, dependent matters which are also pending on the result of these cases. So many cases are pending,” he observed.

A Broader Vision for Judicial Independence

Beyond structural reforms, Justice Joseph underscored the qualities required of a judge. Quoting former Chief Justice M.N. Venkatachaliah, he said, “If he is a gentleman and if he knows a little bit of law, that is good enough.” But he added that this must be coupled with fearlessness and independence. He contrasted the functioning of the Indian Supreme Court with that of the US Supreme Court, where all nine justices sit together. In India, he noted, judges sit in different benches and may not be aware of proceedings before another bench, which can lead to inconsistency.

Conclusion

Justice Joseph’s lecture served as a timely reminder of the delicate balance between the executive and the judiciary in judicial appointments and the urgent need for institutional reforms to tackle the mounting backlog in the Supreme Court. His call for a permanent Constitution Bench and for the government to honour reiterations of collegium recommendations resonates with the legal community’s longstanding concerns about judicial delays and executive overreach. As the justice system grapples with these challenges, his appeal for harmony and efficiency may well shape the discourse in the months ahead.