The Supreme Court (SC) Collegium has recommended the appointment of five additional judges of the Madras High Court as permanent judges. These judges include Justice L Victoria Gauri, Justice PB Balaji, Justice KK Ramakrishnan, Justice R Kalaimathi, and Justice K Govindarajan Tilakavadi. The Madras High Court Collegium unanimously decided to make these judges permanent on 29 April 2024. The recommendation was agreed to by both the Chief Minister and Governor of Tamil Nadu, after which the final decision was taken in consultation with a Supreme Court judge.
The Collegium’s proposal also said that a committee of two Supreme Court judges evaluated the decisions of these five judges and assessed their qualifications. After this, the committee gave the opinion that these additional judges are “fit and eligible for appointment as permanent judges”. Among these judges, the name of Justice Victoria Gauri has been in the news a lot earlier.
There was a ruckus over the appointment
Justice Victoria Gauri’s appointment was mired in controversy in 2023 after her alleged hate speeches surfaced in some videos. On this basis, a writ petition was also filed in the Supreme Court challenging her appointment. The petition was heard on the same day her appointment was scheduled, but the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, saying that a candidate approved by the collegium cannot be subjected to judicial review.
Lakshman Chandra Victoria Gauri, a lawyer by profession, was also opposed because she allegedly called herself the national general secretary of the BJP Mahila Morcha. On October 8, 2010, she was made in-charge of Kerala BJP Mahila Morcha. Apart from this, she campaigned for the BJP in Tamil Nadu in the 2014 general elections. According to ‘The Quint’ report, since the recommendation of the Supreme Court Collegium is sent to the central government for approval, it was alleged that her appointment to the Madras High Court may have a political inclination. At the same time, Gauri was widely criticized for her alleged ‘hate speech’ against minorities i.e. Muslims and Christians.
Some bar lawyers of the High Court had even written separate letters addressed to President Draupadi Murmu and the Supreme Court Collegium opposing Gauri’s recommendation. In these, the group of advocates objected to the Collegium’s recommendation saying that her appointment would undermine the independence of the judiciary.
But CJI Chandrachud remained adamant
The Chief Justice (CJI) had also commented on this entire matter. According to the Bar and Bench report, Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud had said that the Supreme Court Collegium had carefully examined all the material related to Justice Victoria Gauri before recommending her promotion as a judge of the Madras High Court. CJI Chandrachud also said that lawyers appearing for or supporting a political issue are not disqualified from becoming judges.
“Lawyers appear for clients from different sections in their career. Lawyers do not choose their clients. It is my firm belief that as a lawyer, it is your duty to appear for whoever comes to you seeking legal aid. It is just like a doctor has to treat anyone who comes to his clinic. You do not presume the lack of guilt of the people who come to you”, the Chief Justice said.
In this regard, he also referred to the case of Justice VR Krishna Iyer. The CJI said, “One of our greatest judges, Justice Krishna Iyer, had a political background but he delivered some of the best judgments.” CJI Chandrachud was speaking at the Center for Legal Profession, Harvard Law School on 21 October 2023. At the event, he was asked, “Why could the Collegium not withdraw that recommendation at least at the administrative level.” In response, CJI Chandrachud said, “There is an inference in your question, which is that even after it came to our attention, the Supreme Court did not pay any attention to the issue at all. I do not think that would be a very correct assessment.”
He further said, “We have looked into it very, very carefully. Have looked into that speech also. That judge is alleged to have made that speech at a particular time. That has again been looked into very, very, very carefully. One of the procedures that we follow in the Collegium is to seek a report from the Chief Justice of the High Court.” CJI Chandrachud further said that even after the Collegium has examined the details, if it still has doubts, it is taken to the Chief Justice of the High Court where the appointment is being made.
“We go back to the chief justice of the high court. We tell him, look this has been brought to our attention. Will you give us a brief report on whether this is true or false? We ask for feedback and then we share that feedback with the government,” he said, adding that the process also involves background checks by the state and central governments and the Intelligence Bureau (IB).
“The process of appointment of judges is a very complex one which involves various layers of the federal system, the states, the Union and investigative agencies like the Intelligent Bureau which carry out background checks on a person,” the CJI said. The CJI said his own personal experience is that lawyers who have appeared for persons with different political views have gone on to become wonderful judges. “So, I don’t believe that we should criticise a person merely on the basis of the views that he may have expressed as a lawyer. Because I believe that there is something in our profession of judging that makes you impartial,” he said.