The Madras High Court advocated against Gauri’s elevation to the judgeship. Why oppose his appointment?

Image Source: ANI Madras High Court advocated open front against advocate Gauri

Protests against the elevation of advocate Laxman Chandra Victoria Gauri as a judge in the Madras High Court intensified as a section of lawyers on Thursday demanded her recall.

Letter to the President, SC

In separate letters addressed to President Draupadi Murmu and the Supreme Court Collegium, the lawyers’ group objected to the collegium’s recommendation, saying that her appointment would undermine the independence of the judiciary.

The Madras High Court Bar Association opposed the recommendation of the Scheduled Castes Collegium to elevate Advocate Gauri to the Judiciary in the Madras High Court.

He claimed that Gauri herself has accepted that she is the general secretary of the Bharatiya Janata Party Mahila Morcha.

The memorandum was signed by 22 lawyers including senior advocates NGR Prasad, R Vaigai, Anna Mathew, D Nagasaila and Sudha Ramalingam.

“We write with a sense of foreboding, in these troubled times, when the Judiciary is facing unprecedented and unwarranted criticism from the Executive, as we are apprehensive that such appointments may pave the way for undermining the independence of the Judiciary. may,” the memorandum said.

It is of utmost importance at this juncture that the institution is saved from being weakened by its administrative action.

The collegium, comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and KM Joseph, had on January 17 proposed the names of Gauri and four other lawyers for elevation to the high court.

Members of the Madras High Court Bar alleged that Gauri’s regressive views were completely “contrary to basic constitutional values ​​and reflect her deep religious fanaticism, making her ineligible to be appointed as a High Court judge”. “

It said that the collegium’s recommendation from a person with such a deep hatred towards the minority community is disturbing to say the least.

The advocates claimed that any person making comments of a hateful nature should be prosecuted under sections 153A, 153B, 295A and 505 of the IPC.

To buttress their claims, the advocates cited YouTube links of two of her interviews titled “Greater threat to national security and peace? Jihad or Christian Missionaries? and Cultural Genocide by Christian Missionaries in India – Victoria Gauri”.

He also cited an article titled “Aggressive baptism destroyer of social harmony” published on October 1, 2012, in an RSS publication.

(with PTI inputs)

ALSO READ: Of 554 HC judges appointed since 2018, 430 belong to general category: Law minister Rijiju tells Rajya Sabha

latest india news