Advocate LC Victoria Gowri took oath as an additional judge of the Madras high court on Tuesday shortly after the Supreme Court dismissed a petition challenging the Collegium’s recommendation elevating her to the high court. Acting Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, T Raja, administered the oath of office to Gowri and four others.
The Supreme Court had postponed the hearing of petitions against the appointment of Gowri in the wake of her swearing-in scheduled for 10.35 am. A new bench comprising justices Sanjiv Khanna and BR Gavai took up the case.
Less than 24 hours after the Union government announced Gowri’s appointment on the recommendation of the highest court collegium, the Supreme Court announced on Monday that it will consider a request to delay the swearing-in of Gowri on Tuesday.
Gowri is scheduled to be sworn in as an additional judge of the Madras high court at 10.35am, per a circular issued by the high court’s registrar general on Monday night, even though petitions alleging his hate speeches against Christians and Muslims are anticipated to be brought before the bench.
The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn a high court judge’s appointment has only ever happened once in the history of the law. In 1992, the Supreme Court rejected the appointment of a state government official, ruling that he was ineligible to serve as a high court judge because he was a member of the judicial service.
The Gauhati High Court and the Centre were forbidden from taking the candidate’s oath of office during the case’s hearing, though.
After two years, when the Supreme Court collegium will evaluate her overall competence and suitability, Gowri will be up for confirmation as a permanent judge. She has been cleared to serve as an additional judge on the high court.
On Tuesday, Justice Chandrachud agreed to grant an urgent hearing to the two petitions filed by some lawyers from Chennai, contending that Gowri is disqualified from holding the constitutional post because of her hate speeches against Christians and Muslims, besides her open political affiliation with the BJP.
After the cases were mentioned for an imminent hearing, the CJI, on his part, disclosed that the “collegium has already taken cognisance of the developments” that took place after the recommendation for elevating Gowri was made by the collegium on January 17.
“The collegium has taken cognisance of what was drawn to our attention or came to our notice after we formulated our recommendations based on the recommendation of the collegium of the high court of Madras. Since we have taken cognisance of certain developments which have taken place thereafter, we can list this petition tomorrow morning. I will constitute a bench. Let it go before an appropriate bench”, the CJI, who also heads the collegium told senior counsel Raju Ramachandran and Anand Grover, who appeared for the petitions.
According to people aware of the matter, the collegium last week took note of certain offensive and communal statements attributed to Gowri, and initiated the process of verifying them. These materials did not form part of the documents that were sent to the Supreme Court collegium from the high court collegium or the central government which conducts an enquiry through the Intelligence Bureau (IB), people cited above said.
Two separate petitions filed by lawyers from Chennai contended that Gowri is legally disqualified from being appointed a judge of a constitutional court owing to a lack of effective consultation between the executive and the collegium regarding her antecedents that could expose her prejudice against the minorities in the country.
The petitions claimed that all relevant materials concerning Gowri were not placed before the Supreme Court or the Madras high court collegia before she was recommended for appointment as an HC judge even as these materials make her ineligible for the post at the very threshold.
Read Also: No scope for complacency, PM Modi tells BJP MPs, take budget to people
SHARE
