"Worth and merit" entirely different from eligibility of a candidate for elevation: Supreme Court on judicial appointments
"On taking oath the person pledges to work as a judge to uphold the Constitution and the laws....Not only is the conduct and judgments 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", the Top Court has held.
The Supreme Court on Friday opined that evaluation of the worth and merit of a person is a matter entirely different from eligibility of a candidate for elevation on bench.
While referring to Article 217 of the Constitution of India which deals with appointment of judges to the High Courts and Supreme Court, it has been observed,
"Eligibility is an objective factor which is determined by applying the parameters or qualifications specified in Article 217(2). Therefore, when eligibility is put in question, the question would fall within the scope of judicial review."
However, 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, a bench of Justices BR Gavai and Sanjiv Khanna has further clarified.
These observations came to be made by the Supreme Court in a plea challenging appointment of Advocate L Victoria Gowri (Now Justice Gowri) as an additional judge in Madras High Court.
In its order enlisting reasons, the Supreme Court has said that it cannot go into the suitability of a candidate who is to be elevated to judgeship.
On Tuesday, the top court had dismissed the plea and had stated that a reasons stipulating the reasons it has dismissed the plea will follow. Three days later, it noted that that constitutional order dictates that suitability of the candidate who is to be elevated is not for the court to decide on.
Court had further refused to entertain the petition which had claimed that Justice Gowri's purported statements of hatred towards Muslims and Christians rendered her ineligible to take the oath.
In its order, the Supreme Court has noted that during the course of hearing, it was accepted that a number of persons, who have had political backgrounds, have been elevated as judges of the High Courts and the Supreme Court, and this by itself, though a relevant consideration, has not been an absolute bar to appointment of otherwise a suitable person.
It has been further held that while exercising power of judicial review, the Supreme Court cannot issue a writ of certiorari quashing the recommendation, or mandamus calling upon the Collegium of the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision, as this would be contrary to the ratio and dictum of the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court.
"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....", Court has held.
Case Title: ANNA MATHEWS AND OTHERS vs. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA AND OTHERS