Podcast | All you need to know about Justice Joseph's appointment as Supreme Court judge and the seniority controversy

On March 27, 2016, the Centre imposed President’s Rule in the state of Uttarakhand, citing a constitutional breakdown in the wake of a rebellion in the ruling Congress party. Then President Pranab Mukherjee signed a proclamation dismissing the Congress government headed by Harish Rawat and placed the assembly in suspended animation on the recommendation of the Union Cabinet.

The imposition of President’s rule was enforced in keeping with that Article of the Constitution that we hear about usually after a round of great political strife – Article 356. According to it, “President’s rule can be imposed in a state if a situation has arisen in which the government of the state cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.”

In the following weeks, the Uttarakhand High Court quashed the order of the central government while also slamming the Centre for planning to attempt the revocation of President’s Rule and installing a BJP government before the High Court’s verdict. The Chief Justice had then said that the Court was “pained” by the actions of the central government and that instead of exhibiting the required impartiality, was acting like a “private party.” The Chief Justice had asked the Centre then, “How can you think of playing with the Court? What is it [attempted revocation of Article 356 prior to the Court’s verdict] but a travesty of justice?”

That Chief Justice was Justice KM Joseph. He, along with Justices Indira Banerjee and Vineet Saran, took oath as Supreme Court Judge earlier today, and importantly, not in that order. The matter of this assize is the alleged “downgrading” of Justice Joseph’s seniority as he was elevated into the Supreme Court as Judge. You are listening to Moneycontrol.

The appointment of Justice KM Joseph as a Supreme Court judge has been a long-drawn affair with many questions raised and much disgruntlement expressed along the way