Supreme Court dismissed pleas challenging the appointment of advocate Lekshmana Chandra Victoria Gowri as additional judge of the Madras High Court. Meanwhile, Justice Gowri was sworn in as an additional judge of the Madras HC even before the Supreme Court hearing was over.
“We are not entertaining the writ petition. Dismissed, reasons to follow,” the special bench said while dismissing the plea. The top court’s decision came on a plea challenging Gowri’s recommendation as an additional judge and subsequent appointment considering her publicly expressed views showcasing alleged communal bias.
Initially, a three-judge special bench was initially supposed to hear the matter at 9 am considering the swearing-in ceremony was scheduled for 10:35 am. However, a new special bench was reconstituted—Justice Sanjeev Khanna would now hear the matter with Justice BR Gavai and not MM Sundresh as per an earlier notification—and the matter was rescheduled at its normal time – 10:30 am.
Adv Gowri ineligible because of Hate Speech, not political affiliation: Plea in SC
At the outset of the hearing—which began five minutes ahead of time—senior advocate Raju Ramachandran said they were seeking to halt the swearing-in “since there is an attempt to cock a snook at the court”. The senior advocate—representing advocates from the Madras HC Bar who challenged Gowri’s recommendation—said Madras HC announced the swearing-in ceremony even though Gowri’s elevation was challenged in the top court.
The bench however clarified that there was a “difference between eligibility and suitability” of a nominee. “Regarding suitability, the court cannot go into it since the process (collegium) will become unworkable. We can work only around eligibility” Justice Sanjeev Khanna said.
“There are instances of persons with political backgrounds being appointed,” Justice Khanna added in a veiled reference to Gowri’s affiliation with the BJP. Justice BR Gavai said, “I also have a political background before joining the court as a judge, I have been a judge for 20 years and my political background has not come in my way.”
Ramachandran assured the court that his arguments were centered on Gowri’s eligibility alone. There are certain threshold requirements, Ramachandran said. Secondly, the senior advocate asserted that the [collegium’s] “decision-making process was stymied as the relevant information was not passed.”
The material on record shows the mindset which is not in tune with the Constitution, he added. “The political background is not in question at all, hate speech is,” Ramachandran said. “Hate speech which runs completely antithetical to the Constitution and that makes her unfit to take oath. It will only be a paper oath,” the senior advocate asserted.
Did the collegium know, or was it in the dark?
When senior advocate Raju Ramachandran argued against Gowri’s eligibility, Justice Khanna said the speeches referenced were from 2018. “The collegium must have gone through it,” the judge added.
“It is not as though the collegium did not have this (Gowri’s public statements alleging communal bias) before them. For us to get into this (suitability or eligibility of a candidate post collegium recommendation) is opening up new jurisdiction which we have refrained from doing so,” Justice Khanna said.
Ramachandran and senior advocate Anand Grover reminded the bench that on Monday, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud on Monday had accepted that the collegium headed by him was unaware of Gowri’s public statements. “We have taken cognisance of the issue and the matter will be heard tomorrow,” CJI Chandrachud had said.
However, during the hearing today, the bench gave the impression that the collegium knew all and decisions were taken after considering all aspects of the case. “How can we act on conjectures and surmises? There are two consultee judges from Tamil Nadu,” Justice Gavai said.
The bench further said it would be setting a wrong precedent when Grover said the Collegium works on government inputs and the process would be stymied if “vital information is not available, for whatever reasons”.
All that you are saying is that this information ‘may not’ have been available, Justice Khanna said. And the process (recommendation of a nominee) originates from the High Court. Can we presume they are not aware of the antecedents? Justice Gavai added.
Asking the court on the judicial side to direct the collegium to reconsider their decision is unprecedented and something that couldn’t be done, Justice Khanna added.
“To assume that the Collegium has not taken these things into account, that may not be appropriate,” the bench said while asserting its inclination to dismiss the matter.