SC quashes pleas as Victoria Gowri takes oath as addl judge of Madras High Court New Delhi: In a dramatic twist, the Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed the petitions challenging the appointment of lawyer L C Victoria Gowri even as she took oath as an additional judge of Madras High Court. The SC hearing and Victoria Gowri's swearing-in ceremony began around the same time at 10.30 am today.
The verdict of the SC bench quashing the petitions filed by three advocates of Madras HC came just a moments after Gowri was formally sworn-in. During the hearing, the two-judge bench referred to the plea of the petitioners' lawyer and said it would be unprecedented to direct the Collegium to reconsider its decision on the appointment of a judge.
There has been one instance in 1992 when the court had quashed such appointment, said advocate Ramchandran during the hearing. Then Justice Khanna said there are also judgements that refused to go into suitability of cases. Upon which, Ramchandran said it is not a case of suitability but ineligibility.
As per the announced schedule, the SC bench consisting of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and B R Gavai heard the pleas that challenged the appointment of Lekshmana Chandra Victoria Gowri, on the ground that she made hate speeches against Muslims and Christians. The legal case against her emerged just several hours after reports came out on February 6 that the Central Government has notified the appointment of Victoria Gowri as an additional judge of the Madras High Court.
Also Read: Centre notifies Gowri's appointment as Madras HC judge; SC to hear on Tuesday plea against her elevation
The petitioners' lawyer said that Gowri's swearing-in should not take place since the Collegium is still looking into a representation against her appointment. The bench said that it would be inappropriate to say that the Collegium had not taken all these details into consideration before making the appointment. If any collegium member had any reservations they would have reconsidered, Justice Khanna said.
Advocate Ramchandran pointed out that they first made a representation and approached the Court. The bench said it was a case of additional judge's appointment and that it would not be able to pass any order at this juncture. "I think we have a robust scrutiny process. Let's not interfere with that. That collegium would not have taken all facts into consideration, that would not be appropriate," said the bench.
Actually, yesterday, an SC bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud put the plea of three Madras HC lawyers opposing the proposed appointment of Gowri for hearing on February 10 but later advanced it to February 7 after senior advocate Raju Ramachandran again mentioned the plea, saying the Centre has notified her appointment and seeking urgent intervention.
The petitioner lawyers, Anna Mathew, Sudha Ramalingam and D Nagasaila, in their plea referred to the alleged hate speeches made by Gowri against Muslims and Christians. The issue was of eligibility and not suitability and vital information was not before the collegium which created the handicap, Ramachandran said and referred to a 1992 judgement in the plea to buttress his case.
