Supreme Court, Victoria Gowri
The Supreme Court is slated to hear tomorrow a petition challenging the move to appoint advocate LC Victoria Gowri as a Madras High Court Judge.
The petition has been filed by three lawyers practicing in the Madras High Court on concerns that advocate Gowri had allegedly exhibited “strong prejudice” against citizens on the ground of their religious affiliation.
“The petitioners respectfully submit that the strong prejudice shown by Respondent No. 4 [Victoria Gowri] through her vitriolic comments against Muslim and Christian citizens are antithetical to the fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. Such prejudice will threaten their access to justice,” stated the petition.
Below are five reasons highlighted in the petition, on the basis of which the petitioners contend that Gowri is not fit to hold the position of a High Court Judge and that her appointment suffers from serious defects.
1. Article titled “Aggressive baptising destroying social harmony” published in RSS Publication, ‘Organiser’
The petitioners have submitted that Gowri had authored an article in 2012, in which she wrote,
“But not a finger is lifted to stop allured and forcible conversions and to prevent Christians from conceiving communal conflicts”, and that “for fifty years, the marginalised Hindus have been fighting the mighty Christian diocese. But now the situation is out of control.”
She further wrote, “The Christian sectarianism and bigorty indulging in organised alluring conversions continuously has shrunk the majority Hindus to minorities.”
2. Interview with Bharatmarg captioned “More Threat to National Security & Peace? Jihad or Christian Missionary? – Answers Victoria Gowri
The petitioners have alleged that the said interview, was uploaded on YouTube in February 2018, in which Gowri said, “Like Islam is green terror, Christianity is white terror” and that “Christian groups are more dangerous than Islam groups. Both are equally dangerous in the context of love jihad… If I find my girl in Syrian terrorist camps, I have an objection and that is what I define as love jihad.”
Gowri is stated to have added, “… bombing is less dangerous than the kind of conversions being adopted by the aggressive Christian theologist groups”.
The petitioners further submitted that, “She makes a shocking claim that the problem going on in the North East is ‘Christian.’”
3. Another Interview with Bharatmarg captioned, “Cultural genocide by Christian Missionaries in Bharat – Victoria Gowri”
In the said interview, uploaded in June 2018, Gowri is alleged to have referred to the “nefarious activity of the Roman Catholics” and declared that “Bharatanatyam should not be danced for Christian songs.”
4. Affiliation with Bharitiya Janata Party (BJP)
The petitioners have also noted that Gowri’s affiliation to the ruling BJP is well known, since she has been the National General Secretary of the Bharatiya Mahila Morcha (the women’s wing of the BJP) and has described herself as “Chowkidar Victoria Gowri” on a now-deactivated Twitter profile.
5. Collegium was not informed beforehand of controversial speeches and statements
The petitioners have submitted that it is apparent that all relevant material concerning advocate Gowri had not been placed before the Supreme Court or Madras High Court collegia before she was recommended for appointment as a High Court Judge.
“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, it is submitted. As such, it is contended that the selection process was not an informed one and does not satisfy the need for an “effective consultation” as laid down in Article 217 (1) of the Constitution of India.
The petitioners have further argued that any such recommendation by the Collegium suffers from a serious defect if it was based on incomplete information and is, thus, null and void.
“The lack of consideration of the hate speeches by [advocate Gowri] before recommending her to be appointed as a judge of a High Court will erode public faith in the integrity of the judiciary,” the plea states.
Petitioners call for guidelines to determine suitability of persons to be appointed as High Court Judges
In the backdrop of the above allegations, the petitioners have also contended the Constitution of India and Supreme Court precedents call for judges to be independent and impartial.
It has been submitted that several judgments of the Supreme Court – including the 2016 NJAC Judgment, Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association & Ors. v. Union of India, and N Kannadasan v. Ajoy Khose & Ors – have laid down that the absence of prejudice is the essence of an independent judiciary and that a person cannot be recommended as a permanent Judge if they are found to be lacking such basic qualities.
Reference is also made to the judgment in Sri Kumar Padma Prasad v. Union of India, wherein an interim order was passed restraining an appointee from taking oath and assuming the office of a judge.
The petitioners have further asserted the appointment of Victoria Gowri as a High Court Judge, in view of these allegations, would lead to a violation of Articles 217 (Appointment and conditions of the office of a Judge of a High Court) and 50 (Separation of judiciary from executive) of the Constitution of India.
Apart from seeking to restrain the move to appoint Gowri as a High Court Judge, the petitioners have also urged the top Court to frame guidelines on the criteria for selecting a person as a judge of the High Court.
In connection with this, the petitioners have also urged the Court to consider whether “there are inbuilt disqualifications in Art. 217(2) of the Constitution of India against considering a person with strong religious bias and hatred against citizens based on religion for the post of a Judge of a High Court.”
A bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud had initially said that the matter will be listed on Friday, after a mention was made this morning.
However, minutes later, Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju intimated, via Twitter, that Gowri’s appointment as a Judge had been cleared, along with the appointment of several other Judges to three High Courts.
This prompted another urgent mention before the Supreme Court which, in turn, agreed to hear the case tomorrow.
Meanwhile, two other lawyers have filed a second petition challenging Gowri’s proposed appointment as a Judge, raising similar concerns and seeking similar reliefs.
