Can't Object To Judgeship Merely For Views Held As Lawyers : CJI DY Chandrachud On Justice Victoria Gowri's Elevation

During a recent conversation at Harvard Law School, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud responded to a question about the appointment of Justice Victoria Gowri to the Madras High Court, which became controversial as she was facing accusations of making hate speeches against religious minorities. The audience member raised concerns about the collegium not withdrawing the recommendation despite lawyers raising complaints against her public statements. At the event hosted by the Harvard Law School Center on the Legal Profession last month, the Chief Justice was asked – “...Why was the collegium headed by you, at least on the administrative side, not able to withdraw that recommendation, or at least pending further review? Because the bench that you had constituted to look into this case said that despite the representation given to the collegium, you all did not find it necessary appropriate to withdraw that recommendation.” In response, Chief Justice Chandrachud explained the multiple levels of scrutiny and feedback from various entities, including investigative agencies, in the process of judicial appointments. After the High Court collegiums propose names for elevation to the Bar, he explained, the recommendations “travel across the system” – from the High Court to the state government, from the State Government to the Union Government, and finally, from the Centre to the Supreme Court. “A thorough check is done on the antecedents and background of the candidate,” the Chief Justice said. Then, he highlighted the delicate balance between promoting transparency and protecting the privacy of individuals being considered for judgeship, raising apprehensions regarding the unwillingness of qualified individuals to accept judicial office due to extreme scrutiny. Chief Justice Chandrachud said – “The reasons which may lead us to appoint or not appoint a particular judge individually have to do with the several aspects of the personality of individual judges. And the grave danger is that if we start putting out everything that goes into the process of appointing judges, good people will not accept judgeship. The scrutiny is sometimes extremely trenchant as it has to be because we are recruiting people who will be judges for the next 15-20 years. So the level of scrutiny, including into the personal lives of individuals, which would have a bearing on their discharge of judicial duties, is extremely careful. Now, if we start putting out everything about the lives of individuals into the public realm, there’s a grave danger that people would not be willing to accept judicial office.” While addressing the specific concerns raised over Justice Gowri’s elevation, the Chief Justice rejected the claim that the Supreme Court did not consider the issue at all."Your question contains an inference which is that the Supreme Court did not look at the issue at all, including after it was drawn to our attention. I don't think it will be a very correct assessment," CJI told the person who asked the question. In this context, it may be recalled that on February 6, when the petition challenging the appointment of Justice Gowri was mentioned, CJI's response indicated that the collegium was not aware of the objectionable statements."There are certain developments which have taken place, in the sense that the collegium has taken cognizance of what was drawn to our attention, or came to our notice, after we formulated our recommendations on the recommendation of the Chief Justice of the collegium of High Court of Madras. Since we have taken cognizance of certain developments which have taken place thereafter, we can list this petition tomorrow morning," CJI had said on February 6.At the Harvard event, CJI said that legal professionals often handled cases representing diverse political views, which should not later be held against them when considering them for judgeship – “To what extent do you disable an individual from becoming a judge? Just by virtue of the fact that they have at a certain point of time appeared for a political cause? Lawyers across their careers appear for a cross-section of clients. Lawyers do not choose their clients. In fact, it is my firm belief that as a lawyer, you are duty-bound to appear for whoever comes to you in search of legal aid, much as a doctor has to administer medical aid to whoever comes to their clinic. You do not presume the guilt or the lack of guilt of people who come to you.” Chief Justice Chandrachud also said that past political connections would not necessarily disqualify individuals from becoming judges. Responding to the objections over Justice Gowri’s membership of a political party before her elevation, Chief Justice Chandrachud said – “You said that she was a member of a political party. We looked at it very, very carefully. The nature of the speech, which that judge is alleged to have made at a particular point of...

Can't Object To Judgeship Merely For Views Held As Lawyers : CJI DY Chandrachud On Justice Victoria Gowri's Elevation

Awstika Das

Tags