questionable Promotion of Advocate L Victoria Gauri as Judge The Madras High Court is emblematic of the problematic nature of the system of judicial appointment. It also portends a government-run project to take over the bench through its favourites. Ms Gauri, whose apparent bias towards minorities became apparent when her past speeches and interviews were revealed when her name was approved by the Supreme Court, sworn in at the swearing-in ceremony Held with great dispatch. Earlier, the Union Law Ministry had acted on a recommendation relating to a set of candidates with exceptional speed, which was not displayed in other cases. It was clear that the government wanted to act ahead of any possible interim orders from the court, which had agreed to hear petitions by a group of lawyers against his appointment. During this the government did not pay attention a specific recommendation that R. John Sathyan, a lawyer whose candidature was earlier opposed by the ministry, be appointed first. It is a clear message that the current regime will pick and choose from among those approved by the collegium in a manner informed by its political preferences. The government repeatedly going its own way shows that the tussle over the appointment process has reached a stage where the collegium is under constant pressure to shift the position of the executive over individuals if any meaningful progress is to be made on the perennial process of filling up. Bow down to Vacant post.
Ms Gauri’s appointment challenged It was on the ground that had effective consultation and relevant information been placed before the Collegium, the same could not have been appointed. Furthermore, by denouncing Christians and Muslims in his speeches he disqualified himself from acting without fear or favour; And they cannot be expected to do justice “on the basis of religion…” without discrimination. However, the bench is correct dismissed the petitions, noting that it cannot reconsider the suitability of any appointee after the Collegium has decided on it. On the judicial side, the Court could not possibly have gone by the choice made by its top three judges. In fact, there was no point in referring the Collegium’s decision to the Bench for review. It is clear that even the state government did not approve of his extremist views. While political affiliation does not disqualify someone from judicial office, open bigotry should. It is also a signal failure of the collegium process that a contentious motion may be beyond its scrutiny. Much more is needed than reform of the recruitment system: perhaps, a process that combines an objective assessment of candidates’ credentials with an independent mechanism that ensures public scrutiny of their suitability. What is currently in place is an opaque, closed-door consensus-building that can make room for unhealthy compromises.