The Supreme Court recently dismissed petitions challenging the President’s order appointing advocate L Victoria Gowri as an additional judge of the Madras Hight Court on the recommendations of the Supreme Court Collegium. There have been allegations against her elevation from many corners especially from the leftist propaganda outfits which has peddled false narrative about alleged role of judiciary in being complacent with the government in elevating a person having political affiliation with the ruling party. It was alleged that Gowri had made some hate speeches against minority communities in the past and was affiliated to Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
While the case was being heard by the Supreme Court, the Centre had already notified her appointment, and Gowri was administered the oath of office by the Chief Justice of Madras High Court. The Supreme Court however, observed that the collegium would have taken all material against Gowri before recommending her name.
Both the government, who has suggested reform to the system of appointment of judges and the judiciary, who want to preserve the current system of appointment, are caught in the firing line of the ‘Leftist’ propogandist who attacks both the institutions just because their desired candidates aren’t elevated.
These leftist and secular Cabal have a problem with Victoria Gowri because of her ideological and political affiliations. They wouldn’t have gone ballast had the recommended judge belonged to their ilk.
It should be noted that past political links are no bar for becoming a judge and the controversy surround elevation of Victoria Gowri has to be seen as another instance of attack on the institutions of the state by the ‘Left-Liberal’ lobby.
Before breaking down the propaganda against the appointment we must break down how the judges are appointed.
The Appointment Process
In case of High Court Article 217 (2) of the Constitution of India states that:
A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Judge of a High Court unless he is a citizen of India and —
(a) has for at least 10 years held a judicial office in the territory of India; or
(b) has for at least 10 years been an advocate of a High Court or of two or more such courts in succession.
Based on these parameters appointment is made as per the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) a playbook for appointment of judges between the government and the judiciary. It prescribes the mechanism and timeline for appointment of High Court Judges. The proposal to fill up a vacancy should be initiated by the Chief Justice of the High Court and reach the law minister through the governor. The Chief Justice of the High Court will have to indicate if the candidate is associated with any political party, if they have held any organizational or elective office. A system of full disclosure method is followed ensuring transparency to the appointment process.
The Union Law Minister, through government agencies such as Intelligence Bureau, will seek reports on the candidate and send the same to the Chief Justice of India. The Chief Justice of India will obtain views of the Judge(s) of the Supreme Court who are conversant with the state of affairs of the particular High Court.
The Supreme Court Collegium, after gathering the views, will send its recommendation to the Union Law Minister. The Law Minister may send back the names for reconsideration to the Chief Justice of India with specific reasons or put up the file to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister ultimately advises the President for the appointment. While the Constitution of India and the MoP speak of eligibility and procedure, it does not mention that members having political affiliations should not be made judges. Thus, it is clear that there is no legal bar on people with political affiliations becoming judges.
So, what is the problem now? Is it the first time a person with political affiliation is elevated to judiciary? Or the controversy is just because Victoria Gowri had affiliation to BJP?
Politically Affiliated Judges
Below is a list of judges who were politicians prior to or after their appointment.
Justice Baharul Islam was a member of the Congress party. He resigned from the Rajya Sabha to become a judge of the Gauhati High Court. After he retired as Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court, he was recalled and made a Judge of the Supreme Court. He later resigned from the Supreme Court to contest elections and then became a Rajya Sabha member again.
Justice MC Chagla, a legendary judge of the Bombay High Court, formed his own party Muslim Nationalist Party. In 1948, he became Chief Justice of Bombay High Court and remained in that position till 1958. After his stint as a judge, he became the education minister from 1963 to 1966 and the external affairs minister till September 1967.
Justice Hidayatullah was the Chief Justice of India from 1968 to 16 December 1970. He served as the vice president of India for a brief while in 1969 when President Dr Zakir Hussain died. In 1978, he was elected vice president unopposed and served from 31 August 1979 to 30 August 1984.
Justice VR Krishna Iyer became a Supreme Court judge after serving as a minister in Kerala’s Communist Party government. Justice Iyer’s political affiliations and the judgments he had delivered are spoken of even today. In fact, prominent members of the bar, including Soli Sorabjee, had protested Justice Iyer’s appointment to the Supreme Court.
https://twitter.com/governorswaraj/status/1621334483202113537
Then from Tamil Nadu itself there are many instances. Supreme Court Justice Ratnavel Pandian was the former DMK district secretary. Supreme Court Justice Sathasivam was an employee of AIADMK. High Court Judge Chanduru worked as a member of the Communist Party of India (Marxist).
Speaking of character of judges, it is important to elaborate on the allegations levelled against Justice Chandru.
Many would’ve seen and heard about the film Jai Bhim starring actor Suriya, which is based on a custodial violence case handled by Justice Chandru when he was an advocate. In the movie, Justice Chandru has been extolled as a real life hero who fought for the marginalized. However, real life accounts of the case reveal otherwise.
Apparently, Chandru tried to bargain a deal with Anthony Samy (the police officer guilty of beating the ST man to death) for ₹5 lakhs, to ensure that he is not found guilty in the case. However, as Anthony Samy could not give more than ₹2 lakhs, they decided to trap him in the case entirely. This expose has come from Anthony Samy’s very own nephew (sister’s son).
Post his retirement, Justice Chandru has positioned himself as a Dravidian Stockist supporting the DMK. He once made a casteist and misogynist comment against Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman referring to her Brahmin and woman identity.
One shudders to think the kind of justice that Chandru’s pen would have dispensed when he was a judge. But these are subjects the ‘Left-Liberal’ propaganda outfits tend to not talk about.
The Unspoken Spoke Side of Victoria Gowri
Let’s use the same trope which the leftists use to justify the wrongdoings of their ideologues and other controversial episodes – context.
The charges of ‘hate speeches’ against Victoria Gowri has to be seen in the context of her socio-political environment. Victoria Gowri was born and brought up in Kanyakumari, a hotbed of Christian evangelical groups indulging in forced religious conversion. Her formative years have been shaped by the bloody Mandaikadu riots which broke out when fanatic Christians objected to Hindus celebrating their festival and performing rituals in the sea. Even the Venugopal Commission which made a thorough enquiry into the communal riots and recommended a ban on forcible conversions. So, it is but natural for her to voice her concerns about forced religious conversions.
In her early years, she had immersed herself in social work through Seva Bharati (1999-2004) and another NGO ‘Mangayar Mangalam’ (MM, Women Welfare 2004 to 2010). She had worked extensively with Kani community — a forest tribe in the western ghats of Kanyakumari district. Through MM she conducted more than 500 women empowerment camps by working along with women police stations. When Cyclone Okhi inflicted a heavy damage on Kanyakumari, she channelled relief efforts to the needy using her connections. Along with the trustees of the Adivasi People’s Movement, she organised donation drives for the rebuilding of the houses.
In her legal profession, she has handled cases involving Christian institutions. She dealt with the election dispute cases of Indian Evangelical Lutheran Church before High Court. She was even awarded the best lawyer award for the year 2012-2013, by the St Francis Engineering College, (Tirunelveli district of Roman Catholic Diocese).
As for her political affiliation, she left political work to pursue her legal profession years back. For the kind attention of leftists, the BJP is not a banned outfit and being part of it is not a crime. BJP is a party recognized by Election Commission of India just like the Congress or DMK. If a DMK or Communist worker can become a judge, so can a BJP worker.
So, legally and morally there is nothing wrong in the elevation of Victoria Gowri.
The reason for the leftist cabal to oppose Victoria Gowri is that she isn’t one of them and would be a hindrance in using the judiciary for their ulterior motives.
Click here to subscribe to The Commune on Telegram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
Su Ki Sivam: A Wolf In Sheep’s Clothing, A Dubious Dravidianist In The Guise Of A Discourser
Su Ki Sivam is a household name in Tamil Nadu. His face mouthing discourses beams through the homes of many Tamil Hindus. His discourses do get a considerable audience. But the man isn’t as sweet and innocent as he sounds in front of gullible Hindus. The man is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
A Son Of A Nationalist, Now A Dravidian Stockist
Su Ki Sivam’s initials has a story. His father Suki Subramaniam crafted it. He took Su from Subramaniam, his own name and merged it with Ki, for Krishnamurthy as a tribute to the literary revolutionary and freedom fighter Kalki Krishnamurthy and made ‘Su Ki’ as his family’s initials. Bearing the name of a nationalist, SuKi Sivam’s father wouldn’t have approved the Dravidian Stockist SuKi Sivam of today.
A Puff Piece With Agenda
SuKi Sivam, popular motivational speaker and writer had forayed into giving spiritual discourses for many years now. His discourses were always perceived as cursory, as it hit the intellect, but it failed to appeal to a devout heart. While his delivery lacked devotion and execution reeked more of economics than education, the point is this – He has an agenda which he subtly pushed into his discourses. He blames one community for all social evils, which is straight out of the Dravidian playbook.
At one point, he himself said: “En ootula, In my house, I have kept 7 volumes of Dheivathin Kural and 14 volumes of Periyar Sindhanaigal in the same shelf. In my scale, Kanchi Periyar (Sri Chandrasekharendra Swamigal) and Erode Periyar (rabid anti-Hindu bigot EV Ramasamy Naicker) are equally balanced”.
https://www.facebook.com/devotee.of.sukisivam/videos/1189021844561700/
In his high intellectual eyes, the venerated saint Kanchi Maha Periyavaa who had walked the length and breadth of Bharat defending Dharma and upholding the Hindu way of life is equivalent to the foul mouthed dual marriage cynic EVR.
It is a shame that the gullible Hindus clapped gleefully at this and was not cancelled after making such a ridiculous comparison.
He did not stop there. An opportunist finds ways to ruffle feathers and make money off it. He endorsed the bizarre theory that Muruga and Subrahmanya are different, thus vomiting a regurgigated version of Aryan and Dravidian divide. And the work he cited to support his claims was of Arivumathi, a Dravidian Stockist’s fallacious research book as proof.
He recently spoke in favor of Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) being in control of all Hindu temples, while taking unwarranted jibes at Tamil Nadu BJP President K. Annamalai for suggesting otherwise.
Su Ki Sivam vouching for HR&CE is nothing but the need for a ‘devout-appearing’ man to push the agenda of a party known for its anti-Hindu venom. People won’t buy if it is done by an anti-Hindu Dravidian Stockist.
This is nothing but the standard trope meant to gaslight Hindus saying “See.. it is a respected member of your own community who is saying this”.
Buttressing DMK
Recently, the Palani Murugan temple was consecrated during which multiple instances of Agama violated were reported. HR&CE Minister P. Sekarbabu was seen standing shirtless outside the sanctum sanctorum and in another video Dindigul DMK MP Veluchamy can be seen coming out from the sanctum sanctorum.
In an attempt to buttress the DMK, Su Ki Sivam had blabbered that Palani Dhandayudhapani does not need Agama prescribed worship as it is a deity installed by Sidhars and that Lord Muruga himself is a Sidhar at Palani.
“The name of Muruga at Palani is Sidhar Nathan. He does not have a Vel (spear) or peacock (Lord Muruga’s vehicle). He is Dhandayuthapani having a dhanda (a lathi). A loincloth wearing saint. He is a Siddhar.”, Su Ki Sivam had said.
But according to Hindu Tamil texts, Shaiva agamas prescribe 17 forms for Muruga in which his Palani Aandi form also fits. Tirumoolar, a Sidhar himself, has venerated Agamas.
A Loyal Servant To His Masters At Arivalayam
It is to be noted that Su Ki Sivam was comferred with the Kalaimamani award by the erstwhile DMK government of Karunanidhi in 2009.
He was appointed as an advisor to the Tamil Nadu HR&CE department by CM Stalin in January 2022. So, Su Ki Sivam’s utterances on HR&CE should not come as a surprise. After all, he is trying to be a loyal servant to his masters.
Following the appointment, in March 2022, Su Ki while speaking at a DMK function had extolled MK Stalin’s government saying “no historian, journalist, political commentators had imagined that he would provide such great governance”.
He also took sly digs at the AIADMK as well when he said “The Hon’ble Chief Minister is swearing in. On one side there is corona and on the other side gaaliyaana gajana (empty treasury subtly attacking AIADMK). He pulled off a thillana“.
Even before the present DMK came to power he had shared stage with MK Stalin with other controversial personalities like self-proclaimed Carnatic musician TM Krishna, self-proclaimed dancer and DMK member Zakirn Hussain.
Su Ki claims to be influenced by Kirubanandha Vaariyaar. But Vaariyaar Swamigal was a Hindu warriorn who took the Dravidianist dimwits head on. He gave the perfect and stinging rebuttal to all the pseudo-rationalistic barbs of the Dravidian leaders who otherwise swayed crowds with their oratorical skills. He had called EVR as a poisonous river flowing in Tamil Nadu. He had also once made a sly reference to Annadurai’s death saying that even American doctors could not save him for which DMK goons attacked Variyar and his Murugan idol. Vaariyar Swamigal did not drive a wedge between Tamil and Sanskrit unlike the neo-Nazi racists and demagogues currently dominating the political space in Tamil Nadu.
On the other hand, Su Ki equates EVR to a saint. Vaariyaar braved goons who attacked him, and Su Ki endorses that party’s men. And Su Ki has the gall to call Vaariyaar as his mentor!
It is high time this wolf in sheep’s clothing is called out for what he is. A dubious Dravidianist in the guise of a discourser.
(This article is based on the tweet of Tamil Research Lab)
Click here to subscribe to The Commune on Telegram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.