The Centre notified the appointment of advocate Lekshmana Chandra Victoria Gowri as a judge of Madras High Court on Monday — within hours of Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud agreeing to examine a writ petition seeking that the collegium’s recommendation on her is quashed.

The petition has claimed that she made hate speeches against Muslims and Christians and that she was also an erstwhile national general secretary of the BJP’s Mahila Morcha.

The Centre’s swift action to notify the appointment of Gowri, along with three other names for Madras High Court, has the potential to trigger a constitutional crisis. The presidential warrant has already been issued through the Union law and justice ministry on Monday afternoon and there is no provision in the Constitution for removing a judge except through the process of impeachment which is a tedious process by Parliament.

The only possibility, according to legal luminaries like former Chief Justice of India R.M. Lodha and former Supreme Court judge Justice Madan B. Lokur, is that the Supreme Court can stay the appointment on Tuesday, if by then, the Madras High Court Chief Justice does not go ahead with the swearing-in ceremony. If Gowri is sworn in as a judge, the Supreme Court has no power under the Constitution to quash her appointment, Justice Lokur told The Telegraph.

“It’s a horror, horror, horror,” Justice Lokur said, referring to the way in which the Centre issued the notification when the petition had been moved before the highest court of the land.

“Perhaps, this is the saddest moment relating to the appointment of judges in the country,” Justice Lokur added.

Caught unawares, the CJI advanced the hearing of the writ petition to Tuesday morning before an appropriate bench after senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, appearing for three Tamil Nadu-based women lawyers, rushed to the top court complaining that the Centre had around 12.15pm notified the appointment of Gowri. Ramachandran pleaded that the matter, which was to be originally taken up on Friday, should be heard on an urgent basis.

Earlier in the day, during the morning mentioning time around 10.40am, Ramachandran mentioned the petition for early listing before the CJI who initially suggested that the matter would be taken up for hearing next week on February 13. But upon the senior advocate’s persistence for an earlier date, Justice Chandrachud listed the matter for hearing on February 10.

However, closer to noon, word reached legal circles about the law ministry issuing the notification of the appointment of Gowri and the three others. Union law minister Kirren Rijiu tweeted about the notifications and congratulated the judges on their appointments.

This prompted Ramachandran again to rush to the CJI’s court in the post-lunch session at 2pm.

“We have seen the plea and we have read it. There are certain developments which have taken place. The collegium has taken cognisance of what came to our notice after we formulated our recommendations on the basis of the recommendation of the Chief Justice of the collegium of High Court of Madras. Since we have taken cognisance of certain developments, which have taken place thereafter, we can list this petition tomorrow morning. I will constitute a bench,” Justice Chandrachud said while listing the matter for hearing on Tuesday.

Accordingly, the bench issued a written order saying: “Upon being mentioned, taken on board. List the petitions before the appropriate bench on 7 February.”

Former Chief Justice of India Justice R.M. Lodha and Justice Lokur said separately that the present situation was unprecedented and it remained to be seen how the apex court would deal with it.

“The appointment can be stayed or quashed by the Supreme Court, provided she (Gowri) is not administered the oath of office. If she takes the oath, the petition would become infructuous,” Justice Lodha said.

Asked if her appointment can be quashed after she takes the oath, the former CJI said the question “would be too premature” as it had to be seen what the Supreme Court would decide on Tuesday.

Justice Lodha said it would be assumed that the Madras High Court Chief Justice will wait for the outcome of the writ petition in the Supreme Court before administering her the oath of office.

Agreeing with the former CJI, Justice Lokur said that the situation was somewhat unprecedented, though there was one incident in1992 when the Supreme Court had set aside the appointment of Justice K.N. Srivastava before he took the oath of office as a judge of Gauhati High Court.

Justice Srivastava’s appointment was challenged on the ground that he never practised in any court nor held a judicial post in the district judiciary. Yet, he was appointed as a judge on the basis of being a secretary-level officer in the state law ministry.

“Despite the notification, the Chief Justice of Madaras High Court can decline to give the oath, given the circumstances,” Justice Lokur said.

The three joint petitioners — Anna Mathew, Sudha Ramalingam, D. Nagasaila — in their petition sought disqualification of Gowri on the ground that her hate speeches and alleged proximity to the BJP disqualifies her under Article 217(2)(b) “from dispensing justice, without fear or favour, and affection or ill will”.

The petition has listed the following allegations against Gowri:

• In one of her interviews, captioned “More Threat to National Security & Peace? Jihad or Christian Missionary? -Answers Victoria Gowri” uploaded on February 27, 2018 (now not available for public viewing from YouTube), Gowri said: “Like Islam is green terror, Christianity is white terror”. She further stated, “Christian groups are more dangerous than Islam groups. Both are equally dangerous in the context of love jihad.”
• In another interview, titled “Cultural genocide by Christian Missionaries in Bharat – Victoria Gowri uploaded on June 5, 2018, Gowri referred to the “nefarious activity of the Roman Catholics” and declared that “Bharatanatyam should not be danced for Christian songs.”