On Friday, the Supreme Court revealed the rationale behind its decision to dismiss two petitions filed by advocates from the Madras High Court that challenged the appointment of Justice Victoria Gowri as an additional judge of the Madras High Court.
In his statement, Justice Sanjiv Khanna noted that the court had issued a brief order in line with a constitutional bench judgment and stated that the matter of suitability could not be examined. However, a detailed judgment is still pending upload.
Earlier this week, a bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and BR Gavai dismissed petitions that had been filed against Justice Victoria Gowri's appointment as an additional judge of the Madras High Court. The petitioners had argued that Gowri was unfit to be a judge due to certain statements and articles that she had made, which amounted to hate speech against minority groups.
During the hearing, the bench observed that it could not assume that the Collegium was unaware of Gowri's political affiliations or her controversial remarks. The bench also stated that it was not in a position to assess Gowri's "suitability" as a judge at this stage, despite the petitioner citing a previous instance where the Supreme Court had blocked the appointment of a judge on the basis of "eligibility."
Justice Victoria Gowri was sworn in as an additional judge of the Madras High Court on Tuesday, even as the Supreme Court was hearing two petitions contesting her appointment. A detailed report has emerged on the intense drama that occurred in the top court before the hearing began.
For a complete transcript of the courtroom exchange during Tuesday's hearing, the report is recommended.
Background
The collegium, consisting of Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, and K.M. Joseph, had recommended the names of five lawyers, including Justice Victoria Gowri, for elevation to the High Court on January 17. The Centre subsequently appointed her as an additional judge on February 6. However, this decision has generated public controversy, with some members of the bar criticizing the recommendation as being detrimental to the independence of the judiciary. The protesting advocates highlighted the political affiliations of the nominee, who is reportedly the general secretary of the Bharatiya Janata Party Mahila Morcha. Gowri has also faced censure for making statements that have been characterized as "hate speech" against minority religions, particularly Muslims and Christians. In a letter addressed to President Draupadi Murmu and the Supreme Court collegium dated February 2, 2023, the lawyers asked, "Given Ms. Gowri's comments, can any litigant belonging to the Muslim or Christian community hope to receive justice in her court if she becomes a judge?"
Several members of the Madras High Court bar, including advocates N.G.R. Prasad, R. Vaigai, S.S. Vasudevan, Anna Mathew, and D. Nagasaila, have accused Justice Victoria Gowri of holding "regressive views" that are fundamentally opposed to constitutional values. They have argued that her "deep-rooted religious bigotry" renders her unsuitable for appointment as a High Court judge, and have called for the proposal to be withdrawn. In a letter dated February 2, 2023, they expressed concern that appointments like this could weaken the judiciary's independence, particularly given the current climate of unwarranted criticism from the executive. "It is critical to safeguard the institution from being undermined by its own administrative actions, particularly at this juncture," they wrote.
Just a day before Justice Victoria Gowri was set to take oath as a judge of the Madras High Court, a writ petition was filed, and Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran requested that the matter be urgently listed before Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud. The chief justice acknowledged that the collegium was aware of the complaints against Gowri and agreed to hear the case on Tuesday, which was the same day Gowri took oath.
Click Here to: Download/View Related File
TAGS: Judge Supreme court Judgments Lawsuite Delhi
