Justice KM Joseph, in a national conference address, criticized the government and media, advocating for comprehensive reforms. He emphasized the need for changes across government, media, and judiciary to uphold the Constitution and democratic values. Justice Joseph highlighted the importance of safeguarding democratic principles through these reforms.
New Delhi: Retired Supreme Court Justice KM Joseph, delivered a thought-provoking lecture at an event organized by the Student Union, GLCE Law Journal, and the Bhagat Singh Study Circle of Government Law College in Ernakulam, Kerala. The lecture titled “The Constitution in a Changing India.”
In his address, Justice Joseph examined a range of critical issues affecting the Indian Constitution and democracy. He discussed the roles and responsibilities of the government, media, Governors, and the judiciary in upholding the Constitution and its fundamental principles.
Justice Joseph emphasized the need for comprehensive reforms across various institutions to ensure the effective protection of the Constitution and democratic values. He touched upon challenges related to the economy, political environment, secularism, media integrity, and the functioning of the judiciary.
The retired judge called for a renewed commitment from all stakeholders to address these pressing concerns and strengthen the foundations of India’s constitutional framework in the face of emerging challenges.
Justice KM Joseph, while addressing a seminar hosted by the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR), expressed his concerns about the coverage of pre-conference discussions by mainstream media.
He said,
“Before the conference, we discussed quite a few things, but do we read about those discussions in any media, or see them on any electronic media, except for a couple of private digital media outlets?”
Retired Justice KM Joseph expressed concerns over the high number of constitutional amendments that have been made in India over the past 75 years. In his lecture, he suggested that the frequent changes to the constitution indicate underlying issues with the institutional frameworks that were established.
According to Justice Joseph, India has seen 108 constitutional amendments since the country’s inception. He acknowledged that the amendments not intended to diminish the contributions of the Constituent Assembly, but rather reflected the inherent imperfections of the institutions created.
The former Supreme Court judge emphasized that a stable and durable constitution should not require such extensive modifications over time. He remarked that one of the hallmarks of a well-crafted law is its ability to withstand the test of time, highlighting the importance of stability in the country’s legal provisions.
Justice Joseph’s comments underscored the need to critically examine the structural and operational aspects of India’s constitutional framework, with a view to ensuring its long-term resilience and effective implementation of democratic principles.
Justice Joseph admonished Governors for their political interference, emphasizing the need for their role to strictly adhere to legal boundaries. He advocated for every Governor to be educated on the principles outlined in the Shamsher Singh case, clarifying the true extent of the Governor’s responsibilities.
Additionally, he asserted,
“Governors must refrain from acting as representatives of the central government and maintain impartiality. According to him, ‘A Governor cannot interfere in politics’. They cannot serve as agents of the Central Government. They must uphold a neutral stance”
Justice Joseph strongly criticized the media for prioritizing business interests over journalistic integrity, asserting that they often sacrifice their duty to inform the public in favour of profit motives. He denounced the media’s tendency to succumb to government influences, which undermines their responsibility to provide accurate information to the public.
He highlighted the concerning trend of media outlets being controlled by business entities, which leads to editorial decisions being influenced by corporate agendas. According to Justice Joseph, this chain of command ultimately compromises the independence of the media.
Reflecting on a 1995 Supreme Court ruling, Justice Joseph emphasized that while the press’s freedom is not an independent fundamental right, it is encompassed within Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. He stressed that the freedom of the press includes the vital role of informing and educating the public.
Furthermore, Justice Joseph highlighted the reader’s right to be informed, emphasizing that access to information is essential for democratic participation.
He posed a rhetorical question, stating,
“This is important because the right to know is a fundamental right. If you don’t know, how will you participate in democracy?”
Expressing dismay at the media’s selective coverage, Justice Joseph highlighted that significant improvements could have been made if the media had consistently addressed issues like those in Manipur.
Justice Joseph remarked,
“I’m astonished by certain media outlets, yet I continue to tune in, clinging to the hope that they’ll undergo reform someday. A robust and fair media is what I aspire for,”
In his lecture, retired Justice KM Joseph proposed a series of reforms aimed at enhancing the efficiency and accountability of the Indian judiciary.
Read Also: “FUTURE CHIEF JUSTICE- The Dazzling Legal Odyssey of Justice B. V. Nagarathna”
Firstly, he advocated for the establishment of a permanent constitution bench within the Supreme Court. Given the current roster of 34 judges, Justice Joseph argued that a dedicated bench would expedite the hearing and resolution of constitutional matters. He stressed the importance of ensuring that such cases are addressed within a six-month timeframe to prevent them from languishing, which could potentially foster distrust among the public.
Secondly, Justice Joseph delved into the functioning of the collegium system, of which he was once a part. He highlighted the existing process where the Supreme Court proposes judicial appointments, leaving the government to decide on their acceptance. The former judge lamented instances where such proposals remained unaddressed indefinitely, citing the example of a deserving colleague from Uttarakhand who, in his view, did not receive the recognition they deserved.
To address these concerns, Justice Joseph emphasized the need for the judiciary to take a more proactive stance and tighten its grip on the appointment process. He suggested that the courts should even consider resorting to suo motu proceedings in cases of contempt, if necessary, to ensure the swift resolution of matters and uphold the integrity of the legal system.