Cannot examine suitability of Justice L Victoria Gowri appointment to Madras High Court: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday said that it cannot examine the suitability of Justice L Victoria Gowri's appointment as judge of the Madras High Court. [Anna Mathew and ors vs Supreme Court of India and ors]..A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and BR Gavai had dismissed the plea filed by Madras High Court lawyers challenging Justice Gowri's appointment, on February 7, but gave a reasoned order for the same today. The Court said that as per Constitution bench judgments of the top court, it cannot examine the suitability of a candidate who has been recommended for judgeship but can only decide whether the candidate meets the eligibility criteria prescribed under the Constitution. "We have gone through Constitution bench judgments and said we cannot get into suitability of the candidate," the bench said..Background.Justice Gowri had been in the eye of the storm ever since the Collegium recommended her elevation to the Madras High Court on January 17.This kicked off discussion in legal circles and on social media about Gowri's credentials and her alleged affiliation to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).An unverified Twitter account allegedly belonging to Gowri claimed in its bio that she was the National General Secretary of BJP Mahila Morcha. Pertinently, her remarks against Islam and Christianity, which are available on YouTube, also kicked up a storm.A petition was then filed before the top court challenging the Collegium recommendation.The plea raised concerns that she had allegedly exhibited “strong prejudice” against citizens on the ground of their religious affiliation. However, before it could be heard, the Central government cleared her appointment.The Madras High Court then decided to proceed with the swearing in despite the top court being seized of the plea.Eventually however, the Supreme Court dismissed the plea. .Supreme Court Order.The top court cited its decisions in Mahesh Chandra Gupta vs Union of India and Others and M Manohar Reddy and Another vs Union of India and Others to state that judicial appointments would fall within the scope of judicial review only when eligibility is in question and not suitability."However, the question whether a person is fit to be appointed as a judge essentially involves the aspect of suitability and stands excluded from the purview of judicial review," the Court underscored.The order noted that after the Collegium of a High Court makes a recommendation for elevation, inputs are received from intelligence agencies after a background check, and comments from the government are considered by the Supreme Court Collegium. "Opinion and comments of the Judges in this Court conversant with the affairs of the High Court concerned are called for in writing and placed before the Collegium. Invariably a number of shoot down and dismissive letters and communications from all quarters are received. Only thereafter, and on consideration, the Collegium of the Supreme Court takes a final call, which is then communicated to the government," the order said. Further, a number of judges of political backgrounds or with anti-government stance or positions of criticising state policies, have been appointed, the Court highlighted.."This by itself, though a relevant consideration, has not been an absolute bar to appointment of otherwise a suitable person... It goes without saying that the conduct of the judge and her/his decisions must reflect and show independence, adherence to the democratic and constitutional values. This is necessary as the judiciary holds the centre stage in protecting and strengthening democracy and upholding human rights and rule of law," the Court stated.Pertinently, the Court said that the Collegium took all factors surrounding Justice Gowri into consideration.The order concluded by noting that Justice Gowri has been appointed as an additional judge, and has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution."Principle of secularism and dignity of every individual – regardless of the religion, caste or creed, is the foundation of Rule of Law and equal protection of laws. Not only is the conduct and judgments delivered considered at the time of confirmation, a judge is judged everyday by the lawyers, litigants and the public, as the courts are open and the judges speak by giving reasons in writing for their decisions," the order said. .Senior Advocates Raju Ramachandran and Anand Grover and advocates Sanchita Ain and Srisatya Mohanty appeared for the petitioners. [Read Order]