Let’s debate seniority criterion for elevation to Supreme Court: Justice J Chelameswar

NEW DELHI: Second senior-most judge of the Supreme Court, Justice J Chelameswar, has said that there should be a debate on the seniority criterion to be followed for elevation to the apex court. “Should we consider ‘all-India’ seniority of a judge or his seniority as chief justice of a high court,” he asked.

His statement assumes significance in view of the fact that the NDA government has been sitting on the Supreme Court collegium recommendation for elevation of Uttarakhand high court chief justice KM Joseph to the Supreme Court reportedly on account of seniority issues. Joseph is the senior-most among high court chief justices though lower in overall seniority of high court judges.

The Supreme Court collegium led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra had unanimously recommended Justice Joseph’s name along with senior advocate Indu Malhotra for elevation to the Supreme Court. The collegium resolution noted that justice Joseph’s name was recommended after considering “seniority on all-India basis of chief justices and senior puisne judges of high courts, apart from their merit and integrity.”


“The collegium considers that at present Mr Justice KM Joseph, who hails from the Kerala high court and is currently functioning as chief justice of Uttarakhand high court, 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 recorded.

Justice Chelameswar, who retires in June, was speaking here at a book release function, wherein he called for transparency in the working of the SC collegium.

“Maintenance of records of the proceedings of collegium would bring in transparency and elevation to the Supreme Court generally goes by impression some assessment of performance has to be done by the SC collegium.” He also questioned the transfer policy of chief justices of high court, stating a CJ should be given enough time in a high court to make an impact.

“We transfer chief justices so that judges aren’t affected by local influence, then why not transfer chief ministers,” he asked. On the need for a permanent Constitution Bench, he said, it is a welcome idea, but “it requires a re-look at the jurisdiction of the court. If it were really to do only about Constitution matters, there would be no use for 31 judges.”