Petition filed against making Victoria a judge rejected

The Supreme Court has dismissed the petition filed against the appointment of Victoria Gauri as an additional judge of the Madras High Court. The court said that we cannot order the collegium to reconsider its recommendation regarding Victoria Gauri. Hearing the petition, Justice BR Gavai said, ‘I also had a political background before becoming a judge in the court. I have been a judge for 20 years and my political background has never come in my way.’ On one side the hearing was going on in the Supreme Court, and on the other side, at the same time, L. Victoria Ghori was sworn in as a judge.

A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and BR Gavai said that it cannot be assumed that the collegium was not aware of Victoria Gauri’s political background or her controversial statements. The bench said that Gauri has been appointed only as an additional judge. There are also cases when, on the basis of the performance of the Additional Judge, he/she was not given permanent appointment. Two petitions were filed on behalf of the lawyers of the Madras High Court, in which questions were raised on Gauri being made a judge of the High Court. It was said in these petitions that Gauri has been associated with the BJP. Therefore, the decision to make him a judge is wrong and it affects the autonomy and independence of the judiciary.

Gauri was accused of making hate statements against religious minorities. Gauri has been the general secretary of BJP’s Mahila Morcha. On January 17, the Supreme Court Collegium recommended Gauri to be made a judge of the Madras High Court. After this, many statements and articles of Gauri started going viral, in which her controversial opinion came to the fore. The approach to the Supreme Court was made on the basis of these articles. During the hearing, advocate Raju Ramachandran said that we are opposing Gauri not because of her political background but because of her hate speech.

Earlier, appealing for urgent hearing, senior advocate Ramachandran cited a judgement. The lawyer said, ‘I have given a copy to the Attorney (General) and have spoken to the Attorney General. Please see the judgment which states that the relief can still be granted.’