The Supreme Court will hear on Tuesday a petition seeking to restrain lawyer Lekshmana Chandra Victoria Gowri from swearing in as the Madras High Court judge. The plea will be heard around 9:30 am, an hour before Victoria Gowri is set to take the oath.
According to the petition filed by lawyers Anna Mathew, Sudha Ramalingam and D Nagasaila, Victoria Gowri made hate speeches against Muslims and Christians. Though the hearing was initially scheduled for Thursday by a bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, it was later advanced to Tuesday after senior advocate Raju Ramachandran pleaded with the apex court urgently intervene as the Centre had notified her appointment.
"The issue was of eligibility and not the suitability and vital information was not put before the collegium which created the handicap," Ramachandran said and referred to a 1992 judgement in the plea to buttress his case.
The petitioners have sought appropriate interim orders restraining Victoria Gowri from taking oath, in view of the grave threat to the independence of the judiciary. "She has shown strong prejudice during her public speeches against citizens on the ground of their religious affiliation, which disqualifies her under Art. 217(2)(b) from dispensing justice, without fear or favour, and affection or ill-will," the plea alleged.
In one of her interviews, captioned, 'More Threat to National Security and Peace Jihad or Christian Missionary - Answers Victoria Gowri?' uploaded on February 27, 2018 (now not available for public viewing from YouTube), Gowri reportedly said, 'Like Islam is green terror, Christianity is white terror', the plea alleged.
She further stated, "Christian groups are more dangerous than Islam groups. Both are equally dangerous in the context of love jihad'," it alleged.
It alleged that Gowri has shown utter disdain towards the fundamental rights of citizens enshrined in Articles 14 and 15. She is, therefore, ineligible at the very threshold. Her proposed appointment as a judge poses a grave threat to the fair administration of justice and citizens' right to the same under Article 21 of the Constitution, the petition claimed.
The plea sought a direction that all the records and the material before the collegium of the Madras High Court and of the apex court relating to the resolution be summoned.
What next?
A senior advocate, among those who opposed her elevation, said on Tuesday that they are waiting for the outcome of the proceedings in the apex court.
N G R Prasad, a noted senior lawyer told PTI that the plea against Gowri has put forth strong legal points seeking to restrain her from taking oath as judge. "However, her swearing-in is scheduled at 10.35 am on Tuesday in the Madras High Court. Under the circumstances, "We have to keep our fingers crossed," he said.
"The outcome of the fight against Gowri's appointment hinges on the Supreme Court taking a decision and giving a direction ahead of her swearing-in. In case the swearing-in happens before a direction is received, then the scenario would be different," he said.
Sudha Ramalingam, another top lawyer, said that just in case Gowri took oath ahead of the expected SC direction, then impeachment is the only Constitutional process to remove her from office. Ramalingam was also among the advocates who opposed Gowri's elevation.
Days ago, a section of the Madras High Court Bar association opposed the Supreme Court collegium's recommendation to elevate advocate Lekshmana Chandra Victoria Gowri for judgeship at the Madras HC. In separate letters addressed to President Droupadi Murmu and the Supreme Court collegium, the group of advocates objected to the collegium's recommendation, saying her appointment would undermine the independence of the judiciary.
(With inputs from PTI)
