The president of the Supreme Court has warned that its judges will end up being picked for their political or religious views if they are vetted by MPs before appointment.

Right-wing politicians including Iain Duncan Smith and Ukip’s Suzanne Evans called for Parliament to scrutinise Britain’s judges, following the furore over their Article 50 rulings.

The former Conservative Cabinet minister pointed to United States as a model, where would-be justices “undergo gruelling hearings in the Senate which pore over every aspect of their legal opinions and personal lives”.

But Lord Neuberger fiercely criticised the idea, saying: “Would you want to know what their religious beliefs are, what their political beliefs are?”

Lord Neuberger, who will retire later this year, acknowledged he had a pretty good idea how many of his colleagues on the Supreme Court bench voted.

But he added: “One or two I’ve discovered which way they have voted in the past and I was surprised.

“In practice, I do not think that our political views influence our decisions in any way.

“I think intruding into somebody’s political views, religious views, social views is not going to help and will end up, I fear, politicising the judiciary in a way which, mercifully, has not happened at all in this country.”

The president spoke out as he also accused sections of the British press of "undermining the rule of law" in coverage of the Article 50 case.

In an apparent reference to Justice Secretary Liz Truss, he said politicians could have been “quicker and clearer” in defending the judiciary after the High Court ruling that the consent of MPs was required to start the Brexit process.

The November ruling sparked vitriolic coverage in some newspapers, with the Daily Mail branding the three judges ‘Enemies of The People’ in a now-notorious front-page headline.

Ms Truss then came under fire for failing to speak out to defend them against that abuse, including an accusation that her silence broke the law.

Lord Neuberger did not single out any politicians or newspapers, but told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “We were certainly not well treated.

“One has to be careful about being critical of the press, particularly as a lawyer or judge, because our view of life is very different from that of the media.

“I think some of what was said was undermining the rule of law.”

Asked whether politicians responded quickly enough to defend the judiciary and rule of law, he said: “I think they could have been quicker and clearer. But we all learn by experience, whether politicians or judges. It's easy to be critical after the event.

“They were faced with an unexpected situation from which, like all sensible people, they learned.”

The response had been much swifter when the President and his colleagues at the Supreme Court rejected a Government appeal against the ruling last month, he said.