Who is Justice Kurian Joseph? 

Justice Kurian Joseph was born on 30th November 1953. He has completed his education from St. Joseph’s U.P. School, Chengal, Kalady, St. Sebastian’s High School, Kanjoor, Bharata Matha College, Thrikkakara, Sree Sankara College, Kalady, and Kerala Law Academy Law College, Thiruvananthapuram. 

How was the Career Journey of Justice Kurian Joseph? 

• Justice Kurian Joseph served as a Member of the Academic Council, Kerala University (1977-78). 
• He held the position of General Secretary, Kerala University Union (1978) and was a Senate Member of Cochin University from 1983 to 1985. 
• He began his legal practise in High Court of Kerela in 1979. 
• He was designated as a Senior Advocate in 1996 and thereafter elevated as a Judge of Kerela High Court on 12th July 2000. 
• He served twice as the Acting Chief Justice of the High Court of Kerela. 
• He was appointed as the Chief Justice of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh from 8th February 2010 to 7th March 2013. 
• He was elevated as the judge of the Supreme Court on 8th March 2013. 
• He retired from the Supreme Court on 30th November 2018.  

What are the Notable Judgments of Justice Kurian Joseph? 

• Union of India v. Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad & Ors. (2018) 
  • The Supreme Court ruled that even a third party to the proceedings may file a review petition if they consider themselves an aggrieved person. 
  • A bench of Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice AM Khanwilkar made this observation while disposing of a review petition filed by the Union of India against a 2011 judgment in National Textile Corporation Ltd. v. Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad (2011). 
  • In 2011, the Supreme Court had confirmed an eviction decree against National Textile Corporation (NTC) in favor of the Trustees of Seth Harichand Rupchand Charitable Trust. The Union of India was not a party to the proceedings. 
  • The court noted that Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) allows "any person considering himself aggrieved" to file a review petition, and neither CPC nor Supreme Court Rules restrict this right only to parties in the original case. 
• Ram Sewak v. State of U.P. (2018) 
  • The Supreme Court ordered the release of a murder convict, Ram Sewak, who had served over 29 years in jail. 
  • He was convicted under Sections 302 and 394 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment by a Hardoi court in 1982, with his appeal dismissed by the high court in 1990. 
  • The court noted that as per UP Rules, a convict aged over 60 years who has served 16 years without remission qualifies for premature release; with remission, he had completed 36 years. 
  • Considering the circumstances, the court ruled that further review by the State was unnecessary and ordered his immediate release.
• Sapna Arora v. State of Punjab (2018) 
  • The Supreme Court ruled that when trial court proceedings are stayed, parties do not need to appear in court until the stay is vacated or modified. 
  • The bench, led by Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, made this observation after being informed that a Punjab trial court was still insisting on the parties’ presence despite the stay. 
  • The court clarified that such a practice is unnecessary and directed the Registrar General of the Punjab and Haryana High Court to issue a clarification to all courts in the states. 
  • The ruling came in response to a transfer petition by Sapna Arora, where the Supreme Court had already issued a stay on proceedings before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phagwara, Punjab.

• Akanksha v. Anupam Mathur (2018) 
  • The Supreme Court waived the six-month cooling-off period for a couple who mutually agreed to divorce as friends, emphasizing their conscious decision. 
  • The bench, comprising Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, ruled that requiring the couple to wait further was unnecessary given their litigation history. 
  • The order was issued in a transfer petition filed by the wife, during which the couple reached a settlement, leading to the quashing of all cases against the husband. 
  • A prior Supreme Court ruling had established that the six-month waiting period under Section 13B (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act is not mandatory and can be waived if conditions like failed reconciliation attempts and a genuine settlement are met.