BREAKING | Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Against Appointment Of Adv Victoria Gowri As Madras High Court Additional Judge

The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed the petitions challenging the appointment of L Victoria Gowri as an additional judge of the Madras High Court.A bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and BR Gavai said that it cannot presume that the Collegium was not aware of Gowri's political backgrounds or her controversial statements. The bench said that it cannot go into the question of "suitability" at this stage, when the petitioner cited a precedent of the Supreme Court stalling the appointment of a judge on the ground of "eligibility". As the hearing was in progress, Gowri took oath as an additional judge of the Madras High Court.The bench pointed out that she is only being appointed as an Additional Judge and there are instances where persons have not been confirmed, implying that the question of suitability could be later considered by the collegium at the stage of confirmation.The bench was hearing two petitions filed by advocates from the Madras High Court who challenged Gowri's eligibility to be a High Court judge on the ground that she has made hate speeches against religious minorities.Gowri, by her own admission, is the general secretary of the Bharatiya Janata Party Mahila Morcha.After the SC Collegium recommended her name on January 17, certain controversial articles and statements made by her on communal lines surfaced in public domain.Referring to this material, the petitioners moved the Supreme Court.During the hearing, Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran submitted that their challenge was not based on Gowri’s political background. Rather their concern is with respect to ‘hate speech’ in her articles.However, Justice Khanna said that the issue with respect to Gowri’s appointment is not one of "eligibility" but of "suitability". “On eligibility, there could be a challenge. But suitability...The courts should not get into suitability otherwise whole process will become haywire.”He also pointed that the Court cannot, on judicial side, direct the collegium to reconsider its decision. “To assume that the Collegium has not taken these things into account, that may not be appropriate,” he added.Courtroom ExchangeKhanna, “There is a difference between eligibility and suitability. On eligibility, there could be a challenge. But suitability...The courts should not get into suitability otherwise whole process will become haywire.”However, Ramachandran contended that there are “implied conditions” of eligibility under Article 217 of the Constitution.“The materials show a mindset, which is not in tune with the Constitution, which is antithetical to article 21 because equal justice is part of article 21. The oath says judge should bear true faith to the Constitution, which means in 'letter and spirit'. This person has rendered herself unfit to take oath due to her public utterances,” he argued.Ramachandran added that the whole decision making process was stymied as the relevant information was not passed to the Collegium.Here, Justice Khanna pointed that the impugned materials are of speeches from 2018. “It is not that the collegium did not have this before them. For us to get into this is opening up new jurisdiction which we have refrained from doing so.”However, Ramachandran responded that it can’t be presumed that every judge reads every tweet in the public domain. “We can't presume knowledge...I am putting my case on eligibility, there is one precedent of this Court. These are not political views. These are views antithetical to the values of Constitution. It is hate speech, pure & simple. It will be a pure case of ineligibility.”He pointed out to the statement made by the Chief Justice of India yesterday that the collegium has taken cognisance of the complaints about Gowri, which came to its notice after the recommendation was made.He continued, “January 17 is the recommendation of the collegium. These facts come to public on February 1 and a representation is sent. The fact that the collegium has taken cognisance makes our prayer for interim relief stronger. This swearing in should not happen when the CJI has said that the collegium is still looking into it. It will be in deference to the collegium if it is stayed.”Justice Khanna said that it is unprecedented for a Court (on the judicial side) to direct the Collegium to reconsider its recommendation.Ramachandran responded that their prayer is not to pass a writ to Collegium but to take note of the Collegium's cognisance and pass appropriate order.Here, Senior Advocate Anand Grover submitted that it is possible reports of IB did not indicate Gowri’s articles. “To that extent, there can be an enquiry,” he suggested.However, Justice Gavai responded that the court cannot act on conjectures and surmises. “There are two consultee judges from Tamil Nadu.... And the process originates from High Court. Can we presume they are not aware of the antecedents?", Justice Gavai asked.Grover then argued that the Collegium forms its opinion as per the inputs of the Govt....

BREAKING | Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Against Appointment Of Adv Victoria Gowri As Madras High Court Additional Judge

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags