Political past can’t be basis to deny judgeship: SC collegium on Kerala HC judge appointment

A candidate cannot be denied judgeship because of her or his political past alone, the Supreme Court collegium has emphasised, rejecting the Centre’s objection to the appointment of a Communist Party of India (Marxist) “sympathiser” as a judge in the Kerala high court.

“The mere fact that the candidate has had a political background may not be a sufficient reason...” the collegium, led by Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, stated in its resolution on Tuesday.

The collegium, also comprising justices Sanjiv Khanna and BR Gavai, was considering the candidature of Manoj Pulamby Madhavan, a lawyer belonging to a Scheduled Caste who was found suitable by the Supreme Court and high court judges to be elevated as a judge in the Kerala high court, but the central government raised a red flag.

The inputs provided by the Department of Justice in Madhavan’s file read: “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.”

Disapproving, the collegium called the Centre’s objection based on Madhavan’s alleged political affiliation as “extremely vague”.

Its resolution added: “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.”

Interestingly, the collegium’s resolution made hints about L Victoria Gowri, a former leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party, being appointed as a Madras high court judge in February 2023 without the government objecting at the time. Gowri spent about a year as a member of the BJP, having joined in August 2019. Her Twitter handle then was ‘Chowkidar Victoria Gowri’, with her bio identifying her as the national general secretary of the BJP Mahila Morcha.

“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,” said the collegium.

About the second part of the government’s objection, the collegium said the fact that Madhavan was appointed as a government pleader in 2010 and 2016-2021 by the LDF government does not constitute valid ground to reject his candidature. “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,” it underscored.

It further noted that Madhavan belongs to a SC community and has sufficient practice at the Bar. “His performance having been observed by the members of the collegium of the high court who had the occasion to observe his competence and conduct as a lawyer, their opinion should be given due weightage. The collegium is, therefore, of the view that the candidate is fit and suitable for appointment as a judge of the high court.

Apart from him, the collegium also recommended five other lawyers for appointment as judges in the Kerala high court — Abdul Hakhim Mullappally Abdul Aziz, Syam Kumar Vadakke Mudavakkat, Harisankar Vijayan Menon, Manu Sreedharan Nair and Easwaran Subramani.

The joint resolution issued for the six candidates also highlighted that it is for the judiciary to assess the professional competence of the lawyers, given that the Centre commented about the abilities of some of them.

“As regards comments made in the file on professional competence of some of the candidates, the collegium has always taken a stand that it is for the judiciary to assess the same... The opinion of the collegium of the high court on the competence and suitability of the candidate would have to be given due credence since the members of the collegium of the high court have seen and observed his performance,” it maintained.