The Supreme Court collegium has rejected the Centre’s objection to the selection of an advocate as Kerala High Court judge on the ground that he had CPM leanings.

The apex court said the “mere fact that the candidate has had a political background may not be a sufficient reason in all cases” to reject a candidature.

The collegium has cleared the names of six advocates as judges of Kerala High Court, including Manoj Pulamby Madhavan, a Dalit.

The collegium of Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices Sanjiv Khanna and B.R. Gavai, while recommending the name of Madhavan, referred to an earlier decision in February last year wherein it had iterated the name of a candidate — Justice Victoria Gowri — as a judge of Madras High Court despite strong opposition from the Bar over her alleged BJP links.

“We have considered the views of the consultee-Judges on the suitability of the candidate (Madhavan). One of the consultee-Judges has not offered any opinion as he has not had an opportunity to assess him during his period of practice and judgeship,” the collegium said.

“The opinion of another consultee-Judge, that the candidate has a good standing as a lawyer, is based on an enquiry made by him. Another consultee-Judge has opined that the candidate may be considered for elevation. We have also taken note of the inputs provided by the Department of Justice in the file. They are extracted below: “Manoj Pulamby Madhavan is considered to be a CPI(M) sympathiser. He was appointed as Government Pleader in 2010 and 2016-2021 by the LDF Government. The above input that the candidate ‘is considered to be a CPI(M) sympathiser’ is extremely vague. Similarly, that he was appointed as a Government Pleader in 2010 and 2016-2021 by the LDF Government does not constitute a valid ground to reject his candidature,” the collegium added.

It went on: “As a matter of fact, the appointment of the candidate as a Government Pleader would indicate that he would have acquired sufficient experience in handling cases where the State is a party in diverse branches of law. The input that the candidate is considered to be a CPI(M) sympathiser is otherwise vague and bereft of cogent grounds. “Even otherwise, the mere fact that the candidate has had a political background may not be a sufficient reason in all cases. For example, in the recent past, an advocate has been appointed as a Judge of the High Court though she was an office-bearer of a political party prior to her elevation.”