Airing views on social media doesn't disentitle one to be judge: Collegium

It further said the issues on which opinions have been attributed to the candidate are in the public domain and have been extensively deliberated upon in the media

Supreme Court Collegium headed by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud has reiterated the recommendation of advocate Somasekhar Sundaresan, as judge of the Bombay High Court, while rejecting the Union government's contention that he has aired his views on social media on several matters, including those pending before courts.

"All citizens have the right to free speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, and expression of views by a candidate does not disentitle him to hold a constitutional office so long as the person proposed for judgeship is a person of competence, merit and integrity," a statement by Collegium said.

It further said the issues on which opinions have been attributed to the candidate are in the public domain and have been extensively deliberated upon in the print and electronic media.

"The manner in which the candidate has expressed his views does not justify the inference that he is a "highly biased opinionated person" or that he has been "selectively critical on the social media on the important policies, initiatives and directions of the government" (as indicated in the objections of Department of Justice) nor is there any material to indicate that the expressions used by the candidate are suggestive of his links with any political party with strong ideological leanings," it added.

The Collegium had, on February 16, 2022, recommended the name of Sundaresan for appointment as a Judge of the Bombay High Court. However, the government had, on November 25, 2022, sought reconsideration of the said recommendation.

Reiterating the recommendation, the Collegium said Sundaresan has specialised in commercial law and would be an asset to the Bombay High Court, which has a large volume of cases of commercial and securities laws, among others.

According to the Memorandum of Procedure, the recommendation, once reiterated by the Collegium, has to be accepted by the Union government for the appointment of judges.

The Collegium also returned the files related to the recommendation for the appointment of advocates Amitesh Banerjee and Sakya Sen for appointment as judges of the Calcutta High Court. The Collegium noted the government returned their files without any fresh material or ground, even after reiteration of their names.

"It was not open to the Department to repeatedly send back the same proposal which has been reiterated by the Supreme Court Collegium after duly considering the objections of the government," the Collegium said.

In other related development, the Collegium approved the names of five advocates — Venkatachari Lakshminarayanan, Lekshmana Chandra Victoria Gowri, Pillaipakkam Bahukutumbi Balaji, Ramaswamy Neelakandan, and Kandhasami Kulandaivelu Ramakrishnan — as judges of the Madras High Court.

It also recommended the names of three judicial officers, Periyasamy Vadamalai, Ramachandran Kalaimathi, and K Govindarajan Thilakavadi, as judges of the Madras High Court.

The Collegium also found nine advocates Prashant Kumar, Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, Manish Kumar Nigam, Manjive Shukla, Anish Kumar Gupta, Nand Prabha Shukla, Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, Kshitij Shailendra, and Vinod Diwakar suitable for appointment as judges in Allahabad High Court and recommended their names to the government.

It also recommended three advocates, Vijaykumar Adagouda Patil, Rajesh Rai Kallangala, and Tajali Moulasab Nadaf, for appointment as judges in Karnataka High Court.