Supreme Court hears petition against Madras High Court judge’s controversial appointment

New Delhi : Minutes before being sworn in as a judge of the Madras High Court, lawyer Lekshmana Chandra Victoria Gowri is the subject of a petition being heard by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments at 10:25 a.m., and by 10:30 a.m., the Madras High Court had prepared for her to take the oath.

The hearing was originally scheduled to take place on Friday, but the Supreme Court moved it up to Tuesday after the Centre informed them of her judgeship.

The proposal to promote the female lawyer has been mired in controversy after reports surfaced about her alleged affiliation with the BJP and her role as the Centre’s representative before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court.

While the Supreme Court had previously agreed to hear the petition against her elevation on February 10, a bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud mentioned the matter again and set the hearing for Tuesday, saying that the collegium has taken note of “certain developments” since recommending her name to the Centre.

Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran informed the bench during the second mention that the Centre has notified the appointment of Ms Gowri as an additional judge of the Madras High Court and requested immediate intervention.

The recommendation for Gowri’s appointment as an additional judge of the high court was withdrawn after some members of the Madras High Court bar wrote to the Chief Justice of India alleging that she made hate speeches against Christians and Muslims.

Law Minister Kiren Rijiju tweeted his congratulations and best wishes to the new appointees earlier in the day. On Monday, the high courts in Allahabad, Karnataka, and Madras appointed 11 advocates, including lawyer Gowri, and two judicial officers to serve as additional judges.

The apex court bench, which also includes Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala, noted Ramachandran’s new reference to the case and said, “Now that we’re aware of the situation, we can announce it first thing in the morning. We can make ourselves into a bench.”

The CJI told the senior lawyer, “There are certain developments which have taken place, in the sense that the collegium has taken cognisance of what was drawn to our attention, or came to our notice after we formulated our recommendations on the recommendation of the Chief Justice of the collegium of High Court of Madras.”

At the beginning of the day, the Supreme Court decided to hear the petition challenging Gowri’s appointment as judge of the Madras High Court on February 10.

Once again, the senior attorney brought up the plea, saying “This occurred at 12:12 AM. Reminders of the scheduled meeting have been sent.” In his request for an emergency hearing, he cited a previous ruling and argued that the court still has the authority to intervene.

“I have spoken with and provided a copy to the attorney general. In the judgement, it is stated that relief may still be granted “according to the senior lawyer.

According to him, the collegium was given a disadvantage because crucial information was not presented to it.

The CJI considered the arguments and decided to move up the hearing.

Some attorneys, including Anna Mathews, have filed a petition to reverse the recommendation of Gowri for the judgeship.