14 Nov 2023 2:33 PM GMT
During a recent conversation at Harvard Law School, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud responded to a question about the appointment of Justice Victoria Gowri to the Madras High Court, which became controversial as she was facing accusations of making hate speeches against religious minorities. The audience member raised concerns about the collegium not withdrawing the recommendation despite lawyers raising complaints against her public statements.
At the event hosted by the Harvard Law School Center on the Legal Profession last month, the Chief Justice was asked –
In response, Chief Justice Chandrachud explained the multiple levels of scrutiny and feedback from various entities, including investigative agencies, in the process of judicial appointments. After the High Court collegiums propose names for elevation to the Bar, he explained, the recommendations “travel across the system” – from the High Court to the state government, from the State Government to the Union Government, and finally, from the Centre to the Supreme Court. “A thorough check is done on the antecedents and background of the candidate,” the Chief Justice said.
Then, he highlighted the delicate balance between promoting transparency and protecting the privacy of individuals being considered for judgeship, raising apprehensions regarding the unwillingness of qualified individuals to accept judicial office due to extreme scrutiny. Chief Justice Chandrachud said –
“The reasons which may lead us to appoint or not appoint a particular judge individually have to do with the several aspects of the personality of individual judges. And the grave danger is that if we start putting out everything that goes into the process of appointing judges, good people will not accept judgeship. The scrutiny is sometimes extremely trenchant as it has to be because we are recruiting people who will be judges for the next 15-20 years. So the level of scrutiny, including into the personal lives of individuals, which would have a bearing on their discharge of judicial duties, is extremely careful. Now, if we start putting out everything about the lives of individuals into the public realm, there’s a grave danger that people would not be willing to accept judicial office.”
While addressing the specific concerns raised over Justice Gowri’s elevation, the Chief Justice rejected the claim that the Supreme Court did not consider the issue at all. He noted that legal professionals often handled cases representing diverse political views, which should not later be held against them when considering them for judgeship –
“To what extent do you disable an individual from becoming a judge? Just by virtue of the fact that they have at a certain point of time appeared for a political cause? Lawyers across their careers appear for a cross-section of clients. Lawyers do not choose their clients. In fact, it is my firm belief that as a lawyer, you are duty-bound to appear for whoever comes to you in search of legal aid, much as a doctor has to administer medical aid to whoever comes to their clinic. You do not presume the guilt or the lack of guilt of people who come to you.”
Chief Justice Chandrachud also said that past political connections would not necessarily disqualify individuals from becoming judges. Responding to the objections over Justice Gowri’s membership of a political party before her elevation, Chief Justice Chandrachud said –
Finally, the Chief Justice emphasized the transformative nature of assuming judicial office and the accountability ensured by civil society, the media, and public opinion in a democratic society –
“I am not sure whether we should be cold calling an individual merely for the views, which they may have held as lawyers, because I do believe that there is something in our profession, of judging, that once you assume judicial office, whether it is the peer training, the training which you undergo as judges, your experience as judges…There is something about this office, that makes you dispassionate, or which at least ought to make you dispassionate in terms of the work which you do, your interface with colleagues, your interface with the Bar. And particularly in a society like ours, which is an open society with democratic ideals, the Bar and the pressure of public opinion, the press, the media, these are very important counterweights, that ensure that judges are true to the oath and perform in accordance with the Constitution. This is because every part of the work, that we do as judges, is being constantly evaluated and re-evaluated by civil society, by the media. And I think that’s an important aspect of ensuring that judges work in terms of their constitutional mandate.”
In February this year, Advocate L Victoria Gowri took oath as an additional judge of the Madras High Court, while the Supreme Court was hearing two petitions filed by Madras High Court lawyers challenging her appointment. The apex court’s decision to recommend her elevation triggered a controversy, with a section of the bar criticising the proposal as ‘disturbing’ and against the interests of the independence of the judiciary. The protesting advocates highlighted the political affiliations of the nominee, who was, by her own admission, the general secretary of the Bharatiya Janata Party Mahila Morcha. Gowri also received criticism for what was described as ‘hate speech’ against religious minorities, particularly Muslims and Christians.
When the petitions against Justice Gowri were mentioned for listing, Chief Justice Chandrachud agreed to list them soon, revealing that the collegium has taken cognisance of the complaints against her. On the next day, a division bench of Justices Sanijv Khanna and BR Gavai heard the matter. While the hearing was in progress, Justice Gowri took oath. In a major relief to the former assistant solicitor general for the Madras High Court's Madurai bench and the newly sworn-in judge of the Madras High Court, the Supreme Court dismissed the pleas challenging her appointment. The court, among other things, objected to the presumption that the collegium was not aware of Gowri's political background.
Also Read - Victoria Gowri’s Elevation Exposes Centre’s Double Standards & Collegium’s Fiasco