The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that it cannot consider a candidate’s eligibility for a judgeship. In a lawsuit contesting the appointment of Advocate L. Victoria Gowri as a second judge on the Madras High Court, the court has issued the order. On Tuesday, the court rejected the plea and announced that it would issue a statement of reasons shortly after. Three days later, it made notice of the constitutional need that the court not judge the suitability of the candidate who would be raised.
BR Gavai and Justice Sanjiv Khanna’s panel declined to consider the plea that claimed Justice Gowri was unable to take the oath because of her alleged remarks of intolerance towards Muslims and Christians. According to Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, who was speaking on behalf of the petitioners contesting Gowri’s nomination to the bench, “Yesterday Justice Chandrachud had remarked that the Collegium has taken the issue into consideration.” According to Senior Advocate Raju, “Equal justice is a part of Article 12.” The oath specifically states that one should not take the pledge if they do not share the values of the Constitution. Victoria Gowri publicly said things that were against the Constitution’s values.
Since the Collegium recommended her promotion to the Madras High Court on January 17, Justice Gowri has been in the centre of a maelstrom. This sparked debate regarding Gowri’s credentials and her apparent affiliation with the Bharatiya Janata Party in legal circles and on social media. According to the bio of an unverified Twitter account purportedly run by Gowri, she is the BJP Mahila Morcha’s National General Secretary. Relevantly, her comments against Islam and Christianity, which are on YouTube, caused a stir as well. After that, a petition was submitted to the highest court contesting the collegium’s recommendation. She was accused of having shown “extreme prejudice” against citizens because of their religious membership, which prompted questions in the plea.
However, the Central government approved her nomination before it could be heard. The Madras High Court then made the decision to conduct the oath-taking even though the Supreme Court was considering the appeal. But ultimately, the Supreme Court rejected the plea. The bench had stated that the question posed in the petition was not one of Justice Gowri’s eligibility but rather of her appropriateness, which the court would not be able to investigate because it was a personal judgment. The highest court would not, at a later time, interfere with the Collegium’s judgement, the Court had further stated, adding that the Collegium would have evaluated all of the evidence against Justice Gowri.
