While rushing through the notification appointing advocate Lekshmana Chandra Victoria Gowri and four others as Madras High Court judges last week, the Narendra Modi government ignored a specific Supreme Court collegium directive that precedence be given to the appointment of another nominee who had shared a social media post critical of the Prime Minister.
The collegium was unequivocal in its statement on January 17: “The collegium, therefore, resolves to reiterate its recommendation dated 16 February 2022 for appointment of Shri R. John Sathyan, advocate, as a judge of Madras High Court. The collegium further recommends that he be given precedence in the matter of appointment as judge over certain names separately recommended today by this collegium for appointment as judges of Madras High Court.”
However, the Centre notified last Monday (February 6) the appointment of advocate Gowri and the others without acting on the collegium’s specific directive to first appoint advocate Sathyan as a judge.
The collegium included the rider on precedence so as to protect Sathyan’s seniority as his name was originally recommended on February 16, 2022. The factor that decides seniority in court is the day of appointment of judges.
Under the MoP (memorandum of procedure) governing the appointment and transfer of judges, the Centre has the option to seek reconsideration of a name. But if the collegium reiterates, the government has no choice but to accept the names.
However, in recent years, there has been constant friction between the Centre and the judiciary. The Centre, despite two or three iterations by the collegium, has refused to clear some names for reasons that have not been disclosed officially.
The Supreme Court has the power to issue judicial orders if its directives are ignored or breached. It remains to be seen how the highest court of the land will respond to the Centre’s move. In the case of Supreme Court judges, the top court had stood its ground. On January 31, the Supreme Court collegium told the Union government: five names forwarded over a month ago on December 13 for elevation as judges to the top court shall have precedence over the two names being suggested now.
“Therefore, the appointments of five judges recommended on 13 December 2022 should be notified separately and earlier in point of time before the two judges recommended by this resolution,” the collegium had said. On February 4, after an ultimatum by the Supreme Court, the Centre did clear the five names recommended in December.
Advocate Gowri’s nomination to Madras High Court had stirred controversy over alleged hate speech but the Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the nomination. The other names notified as Madras High Court judges on Monday were Pillaipakkam Bahukutumbi Balaji, Kandhasami Kulandaivelu Ramakrishnan, Ramachandran Kalaimathi and K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi.
The collegium also recommended three names for judicial officers, taking the total nominations, excluding that of Sathyan, to eight. The choice of Sathyan was opposed by the Union government on the ground that he had posted or shared two social media posts, one of which criticised Prime Minister Modi.
But on January 17, the Supreme Court collegium of Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K.M. Joseph said in a resolution that critical remarks against the Prime Minister or on other issues could not be held as ground to block the elevation of a candidate for judgeship.
“The Supreme Court collegium in its meeting held on 17 January 2023, on reconsideration, has resolved to reiterate its earlier recommendation for the elevation of Shri R. John Sathyan, advocate, as a judge in Madras High Court in the following terms: All the consultee-judges at the relevant time, viz. Shri Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Ms. Justice Indira Banerjee, Shri Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Shri Justice M.M. Sundresh had found him suitable for elevation.”
The collegium added: “The IB report indicates as under: ‘As per open sources, two posts made by him, i.e. sharing of an article published in The Quint, which was critical of the Prime Minister, Narendra Modi; and another post regarding committing of suicide by medical aspirant Anitha, who ended her life in 2017 since she was unable to clear NEET (the national medical entrance test), portraying it as a killing by ‘political betrayal’ and a tag stating ‘shame of you India’ came to notice.
“All the consultee-judges had a favourable opinion about the suitability of Shri Sathyan. The Intelligence Bureau has reported that he enjoys a good personal and professional image and that nothing adverse has come to notice against his integrity. Shri Sathyan belongs to the Christian community. The IB report notes that he does not have any overt political leanings. In this backdrop, the adverse comments of the IB extracted above in respect of posts made by him i.e. sharing an article published in The Quint and another post regarding committing of suicide by a medical aspirant candidate in 2017 will not impinge on the suitability, character or integrity of Shri Sathyan. In this view, the Collegium is of the considered opinion that Shri R. John Sathyan is fit and suitable for being appointed as a judge of Madras High Court.”
“The collegium, therefore, resolves to reiterate its recommendation dated 16 February 2022 for the appointment of Shri R. John Sathyan, Advocate, as a Judge of the Madras High Court. The collegium further recommends that he be given precedence in the matter of appointment as Judge over certain names separately recommended today by this collegium for appointment as Judges of Madras High Court.”
The collegium then included the specific directive that Sathyan’s appointment should be notified before that of the others recommended later. Other than that of Sathyan, the Centre is also sitting over the recommendations to appoint Ramaswamy Neelakandan, Periyasamy Vadamalai and Venkatachari Lakshminarayanan as Madras High Court judges.
