Judge must adhere to constitutional values by conduct and decisions: SC on appointment of Madras HC judge

The court said the conduct of the judge and their decisions must reflect and show independence, adherence to the democratic and constitutional values

The Supreme Court on Friday said it is a fundamental duty of every citizen and more so of a judge to promote harmony, spirit of common brotherhood among all transcending religious, linguistic, regional or sectional diversities.

Giving detailed reasons for not entertaining two pleas filed against appointment of L C Victoria Gowri as judge of the Madras High Court, the top court said the person in question has been elevated as an additional judge and "on taking oath the person pledges to work as a judge to uphold the Constitution and the laws".

On February 7, the court had dismissed the petitions.

On Friday, a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and B R Gavai said, "Not only is the conduct and judgements delivered considered at the time of confirmation, a judge is judged everyday by the lawyers, litigants and the public, as the courts are open and the judges speak by giving reasons in writing for their decisions."

Also Read: L C Victoria Gowri sworn in as Madras HC judge; SC declines to stay oath

The court also said it goes without saying that the conduct of the judge and her/his decisions must reflect and show independence, adherence to the democratic and constitutional values.

"This is necessary as the judiciary holds the centre stage in protecting and strengthening democracy and upholding human rights and Rule of Law," the bench said.

The petitioners alleged Gowri made "hate speeches" against Christians and Muslims and was therefore unfit to the post.

The court, however, said exercising power of judicial review upon the Collegium decision would be contrary to the dictum of earlier decisions of the apex court, which are binding upon it.

"To do so would violate the law as declared, as it would amount to evaluating and substituting the decision of the Collegium, with individual or personal opinion on the suitability and merits of the person," the bench said.

The court also pointed out there have been cases where the persons recommended for elevation have expressed reservations or even criticised policies or actions, but this has not been held to be a ground to treat them as unsuitable.

The bench also emphasised that after the Collegium of the High Court makes a recommendation for elevation of a person as a judge, inputs are received from the intelligence agencies, which conduct a background check, and comments from the government are considered by the Collegium of the Supreme Court consisting of the Chief Justice of India and two senior most Judges.

Further, opinion and comments of the Judges in this court conversant with the affairs of the High Court concerned are called for in writing and placed before the Collegium. Invariably a number of shoot down and dismissive letters and communications from all quarters are received. Only thereafter, and on consideration, the Collegium of the Supreme Court takes a final call, which is then communicated to the government, the bench said.