[ad_1]
New Delhi/Chennai. Advocate Laxman Chandra Victoria Gauri was on Tuesday sworn in as an Additional Judge of the Madras High Court. At the same time, the Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to entertain a plea seeking to stop Gauri from taking oath as a judge of the Madras High Court.
Gauri took oath as an additional judge of the Madras High Court amid the hearing of a petition challenging her appointment to the apex court. Madras High Court’s Acting Chief Justice T Raja administered the oath of office to Gauri as additional judge after completing other formalities including reading out the appointment orders issued by the President.
Besides Gauri, four others were also sworn in as additional judges of the Madras High Court in Chennai. A special bench of Justice Sanjay Khanna and Justice BR Gavai sat at 10.25 am, five minutes before the scheduled time of the court, to hear the petition filed against the decision to appoint Gauri as additional judge.
The bench said, “We are not going to entertain the writ petition. The reason will be given. Acting Chief Justice of the Madras High Court administered the oath to Gauri at 10.48 a.m. when the top court was hearing arguments on why she should not be made a judge.
During the hearing, the bench told senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, appearing for the petitioners, that there is a difference between eligibility and suitability. To this, Ramachandran referred to Article 217 of the Constitution, which deals with the appointment and conditions of office of a High Court judge. He argued that a person who does not conform to the ideals and basic principles of the Constitution is unfit to take the oath, as the oath speaks of true faith and allegiance to the Constitution. The bench said the petitioners have placed certain material on record and these should also be placed before the Collegium, which recommended Gauri’s name as a High Court judge.
The bench said, “When the collegium takes a decision, it also takes the opinion of the advisory judges of the concerned High Court and you cannot say that the judges of the concerned High Court are not aware of all these things.” The top court said that Gauri is appointed as an additional judge of the High Court.
read this also
The bench said, “If the candidate is not sincere to the oath and it is found that he has not performed the duties as per the oath, is the collegium not empowered to take cognizance of it? There have been many cases where the appointment of people has not been confirmed.”
The Supreme Court on Monday decided to hear on February 7 a petition challenging the appointment of Gauri as a judge in the Madras High Court. The Center had notified Gauri’s appointment as a judge just before the apex court verdict. Petitioner lawyers – Anna Mathew, Sudha Ramalingam and D Nagasela – in their petition had referred to the alleged hate remarks made by Gauri against Muslims and Christians.
The petition said, “The petitioners are seeking issuance of appropriate interim orders restraining the fourth respondent (Gauri) from taking oath as a Judge of the High Court in view of the ‘serious threat’ to the independence of the judiciary. ” (agency)
[ad_2]
Source link