Published: 16th Feb, 2023
Context
Recently, the Supreme Court explained that “suitability” of a candidate cleared by the Collegium for appointment as a judge in a constitutional court cannot be a subject of judicial review.
About
What’s the matter?
- The Supreme Court Collegium recently recommended the name of Lekshmana Chandra Victoria Gowri to be appointed as a judge of the Madras High Court.
- This came amidst ongoing tension between the Centre and the Collegium over constant delays in the Centre clearing names recommended by the Collegium.
- Protest: Soon after Advocate Gowri’s name was recommended, lawyers at the Madras High Court began protesting against her appointment due to:
- Hate speech: her past public speeches hint at strong prejudices against citizens on grounds of their religious affiliations.
Why Ms. Gowri’s appointment is outside the ambit of ‘judicial review’?
- The court said the question whether Ms. Gowri was “fit” to be a judge was outside the ambit of judicial review.
- The question whether a person is fit to be appointed as a judge essentially involves the aspect of suitability and stands excluded from the purview of judicial review.
Suitability vs Eligibility
|
The Chief Justice and Judges of the High Courts are to be appointed by the President under clause (1) of Article 217 of the Constitution. |
- The Bench distinguished between ‘suitability’ and ‘eligibility’ of a candidate zeroed in for High Court judgeship.
- Eligibility was based on “objective factors” given in Article 217(2) of the Constitution.
- Suitability of a candidate was the domain of the Collegium as it involved a procedure “designed to test the fitness of a person, including her character, integrity, competence, knowledge and the like”.
|
What is the Collegium System?
|
Courses
Study
Notes
Home
Resources
More
