NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday offered the factors for dismissal of petitions challenging the consultation of LC Victoria Gowri as an extra judge of Madras HC, pointing out alleged hate speeches against Muslims and Christians, but stated the Constitution mandated regard and dignity to all sections and communities of the society which verification of an HC judge, who is judged daily by legal representatives and litigants, depends on his/her conduct and judgments.Four days after dismissing petitions challenging Justice Gowris visit, a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and BR Gavai in a detailed judgment said, Principle of secularism and the self-respect of every person-- regardless of the religion, caste or creed, is the foundation of Rule of Law and equivalent defense of laws.

Not only is the conduct and judgments provided considered at the time of confirmation, a judge is judged daily by the lawyers, litigants and the public, as the courts are open and the judges speak by offering reasons in composing for their decisions.

Providing the factors behind its Monday decision not to entertain PILs against Justice Gowri, the bench stated, We are clearly of the opinion that this Court, while working out power of judicial evaluation can not issue a writ of certiorari quashing the suggestion, or mandamus hiring the Collegium of the Supreme Court to reassess its choice, as this would be contrary to the ratio and dictum of the earlier choices of this Court ...

To do so would break the law as stated, as it would total up to assessing and replacing the choice of the Collegium, with specific or individual opinion on the suitability and benefits of the individual.

It stated that the political background of an individual was no bar for his/her choice for appointment as a constitutional court judge.

There have been cases where the individuals recommended for elevation have expressed appointments or perhaps criticised policies or actions, but this has not been held to be a ground to treat them as unsuitable.

It goes without stating that the conduct of the judge and her/his decisions need to reflect and reveal self-reliance, adherence to the democratic and constitutional values.

This is essential as the judiciary holds the centre stage in protecting and enhancing democracy and supporting human rights and Rule of Law, it said.Differentiating in between eligibility and suitability, the bench said, Eligibility is an unbiased factor which is figured out by applying the criteria or credentials defined in Article 217( 2 ).

When eligibility is put in concern, the question would fall within the scope of judicial review.

The concern whether an individual is fit to be selected as a judge essentially involves the element of viability and stands left out from the province of judicial review.

It pointed out the SCs 1993 and 1998 judgments, which developed the judges-selecting-judges collegium system, which barred judicial review of consultation of judges whose names were advised by the collegium headed by the CJI.

The 1993 judgment had stated, Plurality of judges in the formation of the opinion of the Chief Justice of India, as shown, is another integrated check versus the probability of arbitrariness or predisposition, even unconsciously, of any person.

The judicial element being predominant when it comes to consultations, and definitive in transfers, as suggested, the requirement for additional judicial review, as in other executive actions, is removed.

It had likewise said, The reduction of the area of discretion to the minimum, the component of plurality of judges in formation of the opinion of the Chief Justice of India, effective assessment in composing, and prevailing standards to control the area of discretion are sufficient checks versus arbitrariness.