After ‘anti minority’ remark row sc to hear plea against lawyer gowri’s elevation to madras hc

After ‘anti minority’ remark row sc to hear plea against lawyer gowri’s elevation to madras hc

‘Certain material’ about advocate came to light only after her name was proposed to govt, says CJI. A section of lawyers claim her appointment will undermine judiciary’s independence.

New Delhi: The controversy over L. Victoria Gowri’s appointment as a high court judge took a new twist Monday, after Chief Justice of India (CJI) D. Y. Chandrachud observed that the Supreme Court Collegium was unaware of “certain material” related to the advocate while clearing her elevation.

Gowri was amongst six advocates who were chosen by the SC Collegium headed by CJI Chandrachud to become new judges of the Madras High Court. One of the six advocates, R. John Sathyan, was a case of reiteration.

On Monday, the CJI disclosed that the material related to Gowri came to light only after her name was proposed to the government on 17 January. His observations came close to the heels of the Centre notifying Gowri’s appointment, soon after President Droupadi Murmu signed warrants of the lawyer.

The notification to appoint Gowri was issued minutes after a petition was mentioned against her recommendation before the CJI’s bench Monday morning. Taking note of the petition filed by a group of lawyers from the Madras High Court, CJI Chandrachud had agreed to list it Friday.

But the matter was mentioned again by senior advocate Raju Ramachandran in the afternoon, urging the court to list the petition of a hearing immediately. He informed the court that the government issued her appointment notification after the petition challenging her recommendation for elevation was mentioned Monday morning.

The petition has listed five reasons, including her alleged statements against minorities, to highlight why Gowri’s appointment suffers from serious defects.

Responding to the request, CJI Chandrachud remarked about the collegium being kept in the dark about some material about Gowri. “We have seen the plea and we have read it. There are certain developments which have taken place. Collegium has taken cognisance of what came to our notice and it was after our recommendation,” the CJI said.

He then acceded to the request for urgent listing of the plea. “I will constitute a bench and this matter will be placed before that bench tomorrow morning.”

In its petition, the group of lawyers highlighted an article written by Gowri against conversion to Christianity published in RSS publication Organiser.

Her interview with Bharatmarg, a YouTube channel, uploaded in February 2018, in which she claimed Jihad or Christian missionaries were a threat to national security and peace is the second ground to oppose Gowri’s nomination as a judge. In this interview, Gowri is said to have said that,“… bombing is less dangerous than the kind of conversions being adopted by the aggressive Christian theologist groups”.

In another interview with Bharatmarg captioned, ‘Cultural genocide by Christian Missionaries in Bharat—Victoria Gowri,’ uploaded in June 2018, Gowri declared Bharatnatyam should not be danced for Christian songs. This interview is the third reason for the petitioners’ apprehensions over Gowri’s suitability as a HC judge.

While her affiliation with the BJP is the fourth ground, the fact that the Collegium was not informed beforehand of controversial speeches and statements is the final contention. “Had such material been placed, the same would have revealed her ineligibility to be appointed as a judge of a High Court,” the plea adds.

Gowri’s personal views “against Muslims and Christians” is a relevant factor that should have been considered during the selection process, the group submitted.

The fact that this material was not placed before the Collegium shows the selection process was not an “informed one” and doesn’t satisfy the need for an “effective consultation” as laid down in Article 217 (1) of the Constitution to appoint a HC judge, it contended.

‘Prompt approval’

Sources in the Supreme Court expressed surprise over the speed at which the government approved appointment of three lawyers, including that of Gowri, out of the six who were cleared by the Collegium on 17 January.

“The Collegium had deliberated on seven names, including one of an advocate whose file was sent back by the government for reconsideration. While the collegium cleared five fresh names and rejected one, it reiterated the name of R. John Sathyan,” the source quoted above said.

The government had objected to Sathyan’s induction because he had shared an article critical of the Prime Minister. On Monday, it notified only three advocates, while ignoring the other three, including Sathyan.

With regard to Gowri, another source told The Print that her name was doing the rounds for a long time. Therefore, those having objections had a lot of time to place the material before the Collegium. However, the appointment body did not receive any complaint at the time of the deliberations.

A third source added that after the SC Collegium received a written complaint from a section of lawyers, it sought inputs from the Chief Justice of Madras High Court. “However, since her warrants are out, we don’t know what can be done about it (the complaint) now,” the source said.

The SC Collegium’s resolution to nominate Gowri as one of the judges of the Madras HC has met with stiff opposition from the lawyers, who have questioned her credentials and alleged affiliation to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

In a letter written last week to the SC Collegium and the President, this group sought a recall of her recommendation in the interest of judiciary’s independence. Gowri herself admitted being the National Secretary of BJP Mahila Morcha and her appointment, at this juncture, would pave the way for “undermining the independence of judiciary”, the letter claimed.

Her remarks, uploaded on social media platforms, against the minorities were also placed before the Collegium through the letter. “The Collegium’s recommendation of a person who harbours such strong antipathy towards the minority community is disturbing, to say the least. Any per person spewing vitriolic comments of this nature ought to be prosecuted under Sections 153A, 153B, 295A and 505 of the Indian Penal Code,” it said.

Gowri, however, found support of a second group of lawyers from Madurai who wrote to the CJI in support of her.