The Supreme Court has dismissed the petition challenging the appointment of Victoria Gowri as Madras High Court judge. A bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice BR Gavai heard the matter and deemed it fit to dismiss the petition. Her eligibility was being challenged on the grounds that she had indulged in hate speech which indicates that she would not bear true faith to the Constitution, argued the petitioners.

The hearing of the petition was initially pre-poned and was to be heard at 9.15 am since the swearing in ceremony of Gowri was scheduled for 10.30 am at Madras High Court. However, eventually, it was heard at 10.30 am. There was also no clarity on the quorum until about 10.00 am. Finally, the bench assembled at 10.30am in Court 7, Supreme Court.

Senior Advocates Raju Ramachandran and Anand Grover appeared for the petitioners (two advocates form Madras High Court) and urged that the appointment should be stayed. Justice Khanna said that the court cannot go into the matter of suitability in appointment of a judge and can only adjudge on the candidate’s eligibility.

However, Ramachandran insisted that he was arguing on eligibility itself. He contended that Article 217 has implied conditions of eligibility and also that decision making process was stymied as the relevant information was not before the higher judiciary when the decision was taken. Referring to the materials subsequently placed on record before the bench (after her appointment), including Justice Gowri’s tweets on the social media platform, Ramachandran said that “they 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 a judge should bear true faith to the Constitution. This person has rendered unfit to take oath due to her public utterances,” he argued.

Justice Khanna maintained that this is not the first time a person with a political background was being appointed as a judge. However, Ramachandran asserted that he was not contesting her political background at all, “Political background is not the question at all. It is hate speech. Hate speech (propagation) runs completely antithetical to Constitution. That makes her unfit to take oath. It will only be an oath on paper, it was argued!

Justice Khanna said that the SC Collegium must have gone through her tweets etc and hence was not inclined to “open up a new jurisdiction”. To this, Ramachandran said that we cannot presume that the collegium read all of her tweets or that these are available in the materials placed on record.

When Ramachandran insisted that her views are not political and they constitute hate speech which makes the choice candidate of the case ‘a pure case of ineligibility’, Justice Khanna said, “That will be stretching too much.” He also pointed out that she was being appointed as an additional judge and there are times when person do not get confirmed as Judges thereafter.

Ramachandran also pointed out that the recommendation of the Collegium was sent on January 17 and the facts became public on February 1 and accordingly a representation was even sent, “The fact that the Collegium has even taken cognisance of the matter 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 not stayed,” he added. He insisted that in consideration of the Collegium’s cognisance, the appointment be stayed.

Grover also pointed that that it is possible that the IB reports from the government failed to mention such vital information. Grover further brought to the court’s attention the haste in which the swearing in was done, “See the ugly haste in which it has been done. The fact that this Court was hearing was brought to the notice of the Acting Chief Justice of Madras HC. And the notification for swearing in is issued at 10.35 am?”.

Meanwhile, Bar Council of India (BCI) chairperson, Manan Kumar Mishra informed the court that there were no complaints of misconduct against her from other Bar Councils in the country.

The bench however said that astoppal of the appointment would set a wrong precedent and finally decided to dismiss the petitions, adding that a reasoned order would follow. Ironically, While the hearing was in progress, Victoria Gowri took oath as Additional Judge of Madras High Court.

The post Challenge to V Gowri’s appointment as Additional HC Judge dismissed: SC appeared first on SabrangIndia.