Justice Chandrachud, the Chief Justice of India, stated that a lawyer’s prior political ties and opinions should not be taken into consideration when they are appointed to a court. He noted lawyers typically represent clients from varied backgrounds throughout their careers, and one should not be “cold calling” them just for beliefs they may have held as lawyers.
During a recent encounter at Harvard Law School, the Chief Justice was answering a question regarding the contentious elevation of Justice Victoria Gowri to the Madras High Court last year. Lawyers were among the many who had expressed concerns regarding her political views and previous remarks, which included purported “hate speech.”
The Chief Justice said, “I’m not sure if we should be cold calling someone just because they may have held certain legal beliefs. I do think that once you take judicial office, there’s something in our profession that matters, whether it’s peer training, judicial training, or your experience as a judge.”
The statement “Lawyers across their careers appear for a cross-section of clients” was emphasized by him. “Clients are not chosen by attorneys. In fact, I firmly believe that, in the same way that a doctor has a duty to provide medical care to anyone who visits their clinic, it is your obligation as a lawyer to represent anyone who comes to you seeking legal advice.”
Due to her purported BJP membership during her legal career, Justice Gowri’s elevation was surrounded by controversy.
According to the bio of an unconfirmed Twitter account purporting to be Gowri’s, she is the National General Secretary of the BJP, Mahila Morcha. On October 21, CJI Chandrachud gave a speech at the Harvard Law School’s Center for Legal Profession.
At the event, he was questioned, “Why was the Collegium, at least on the administrative side, not able to withdraw that recommendation?”
CJI Chandrachud responded, saying, “Your question implies that the Supreme Court ignored the matter completely, even after it was brought to our attention. That wouldn’t seem like a very accurate appraisal, in my opinion.”
Giving more details, he stated, “We took a very close look at it. Again, the character of the speech that the judge is purported to have made at a specific moment is examined extremely, extremely, extremely thoroughly. Requesting a report from the Chief Justice of the High Court is one of the procedures the Collegium follows.”
CJI Chandrachud went on to say that in the event that the collegium remains uncertain after reviewing the evidence, the matter is brought before the Chief Justice of the High Court, where the appointment is being made. “We return to the High Court Chief Justice and inform him that we have been made aware of this. Could you please let us know in brief if this is genuine or not? We solicit comments, which we then provide to the government.
He said that the Intelligence Bureau conducted a background check as well as involved the state and federal administrations. “The process of appointing judges is therefore a fairly complicated process involving different layers of the federal system, the States, the Union, and investigative agencies such as the Intelligent Bureau, which do a background check on the antecedents of an individual,” according to the CJI.
The Chief Justice of India said that he personally knew of no better judges than those who represented clients with a wide range of political beliefs. “So, I am not sure whether we should be cold calling an individual merely for the views, which they may have held as lawyers, because I do believe that there is something in our profession, of judging, that once you assume judicial office, whether it is peer training, the training that you undergo as judges, or your experience as judges, there is something about this office that makes you dispassionate, or which at least ought to make you dispassionate in terms of the work that you do, your interface with colleagues, your interface with the bar,” stated the Chief Justice.
