TMC MP questions elevation of Victoria Gowri as Madras HC judge, in Rajya Sabha

NEW DELHI: Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP in Rajya Sabha, Jawahar Sircar, on Thursday questioned the recent elevation of Victoria Gowri as a judge of the Madras High Court, asking if the government considered her appointment “appropriate” in view of her alleged remarks against the minority communities. The government countered this by saying that no aspersions should be cast on her appointment as not only had it followed the due process, the Supreme Court too has given its ruling on her suitability.
During the Question Hour in Rajya Sabha, Sircar, in a supplementary to his starred question seeking ‘sharp points of difference between the Supreme Court and government on the power and procedure of appointing judges to the High Courts and the Supreme Court’, brought up the controversy over Gowri’s appointment. He citing her alleged “casteist remarks and remarks against the minorities”. His query came in response to law minister Kiren Rijiju’s written reply that differences of opinion between the Executive and Judiciary on the appointment of judges are mutually reconciled “to ensure that only the appropriate person is appointed to the high constitutional post of a judge”.
At this point, Leader of the House Piyush Goyal rose to state that decorum must be maintained as the “honourable judge” was duly appointed through a process. “I don't think we should be casting aspersions of this nature,” he said while seeking the Chair’s indulgence.
Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar too said the three wings of the state — Legislature, Executive and Judiciary — must act in tandem and practise mutual respect towards one another. “When it comes to the judiciary with respect to which the judgment of the highest court has already come ... I am sure that the issue should be kept away. I would urge the members to ask his supplementary in a pointed manner, keeping in mind the provision that judicial situations have to be addressed in a delicate manner,” he stated.
Dhankhar reminded Sircar that he was making reference to an individual who is not a member of the House and for whom the president has issued a warrant of appointment. “The Supreme Court has already taken a view on it,” he stated.
Rijiju endorsed Dhankhar’s view saying, “There are certain sensitive matters which we have to bear in mind when we speak in this August House”. He stated that Sircar, as a former senior bureaucrat, did not need to be told about the rules and regulations or decorum.
On Sircar’s query about the conflict between the Executive and the Judiciary, Rijiju said differences of opinion are “very much” part of a democracy and there are ways to find solutions. “Appointment of judges in higher judiciary is a collaborative and integrated process involving both the Executive and the Judiciary,” Rijiju said in his written reply.
Regarding his query on the status of judges’ vacancies in the Supreme Court and high courts, the law minister stated as on February 6, 2023, there were two vacancies in the Supreme Court that were at various stages of processing. In the high courts, against the sanctioned strength of 1,108 Judges, 771 Judges were working and 337 posts vacant.
Appointments in respect of 13 judges of various high courts were notified on February 6. Besides, 127 proposals recommended by high hourt collegiums were at various stages of processing, while recommendations against 210 vacancies were yet to be received from the HC collegiums, he added.