Suitability of a candidate cleared by Collegium can’t be subject of judicial review: Supreme Court

ForumIAS announcing GS Foundation Program for UPSC CSE 2025-26 from 10th August. Click Here for more information.

Source: The post is based on the article “Suitability of a candidate cleared by Collegium can’t be subject of judicial review: Supreme Court” published in The Hindu on 11th February 2023.

What is the news?

The Supreme Court has recently dismissed the petitions seeking to restrain Lekshmana Chandra Victoria Gowri from taking oath as an additional judge of the Madras high court.

What were the reasons behind dismissing the petitions?

The Supreme Court has 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.

Therefore, it cannot issue a writ of certiorari quashing the recommendation, or mandamus calling upon the Collegium of the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision.

This would result in evaluating and substituting the decision of the Collegium, with individual or personal opinion on the suitability and merits of the person.

Hence, Ms. Gowri was fit to be a judge and was outside the ambit of judicial review.

Moreover, the Bench distinguished between ‘suitability’ and ‘eligibility’ of a candidate recommended for judge in a High Court.

What is the difference between suitability and eligibility given by the Constitution Bench?

Eligibility was based on “objective factors” given in Article 217(2) of the Constitution like citizenship and 10 years’ experience as a judicial officer or a lawyer in a High Court.

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.

What was the reason behind petitions against the Victoria Gowri?

The petitions were filed against the elevation of Advocate Victoria Gowri to the position of a judge in the Madras High Court because she had made hate remarks against Muslims and Christians.

However, SC said that a judge’s pledge and duty is beyond religious, linguistic, regional or sectional diversities.

Print Friendly and PDF
Blog
Academy
Community