Tahilramani episode echoes 1981 resignation

M.M. Ismail quit in similar situation

10/09/2019, KRISHNADAS RAJAGOPAL,NEW DELHI

V. K. Tahilramani

Madras High Court Chief Justice V. K. Tahilramani’s decision to resign in the face of a Supreme Court Collegium recommendation to transfer her to the Meghalaya High Court finds a distant echo with the choice made by another Madras High Court Chief Justice, nearly 40 years ago, to “sacrifice” his career and bow out with a sense of self-respect.

On January 19, 1981, the President issued an order to transfer then Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, M.M. Ismail, to the Kerala High Court.

Lawyers, including advocate Lily Thomas, rushed to court against the transfer. The petitions, among several others, came up before a seven-judge Bench of the Supreme Court for hearing. This judges transfer case came to be famously known as the “First Judges’ Case” after it was reconsidered in the “Second Judges Case”, which introduced the collegium system.

Though he was made a respondent in Ms. Thomas’s petition, Justice Ismail filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court conveying his decision not to question the legality or validity of the transfer. But Justice Ismail did not go unnoticed by the Supreme Court judges.

“I cannot help commending the conduct of Justice Ismail, who actually resigned and chose to quit his office instead of pursuing the matter further in the larger interest of the purity of administration of justice. The life of a judge is that of a hermit and he must inculcate a spirit of self-sacrifice and should take his profession in this holy spirit,” Justice S.M. Fazal Ali wrote in his judgment in the Judges Transfer Case.

Justice R.S. Pathak reproduced extracts from the affidavit filed by Justice Ismail, saying he had no interest in people advocating his case.

“...I decided not to proceed to Kerala to take charge as the Chief Justice of the High Court of Kerala; not to challenge the legality or the validity of the order of the President so transferring me in any Court of Law; and (3) to proceed on leave preparatory to premature retirement by resigning my office… I have nothing to submit to this Honourable Court in this writ petition and I do not want anyone to litigate for or against me,” he wrote to the Supreme Court Bench.

No harsh remarks on lower courts: SC

Top court warns HCs against using strong language against subordinate judiciary

10/09/2019, LEGAL CORRESPONDENT, ,NEW DELHI

The Supreme Court expunged the remarks made by the Allahabad High Court.

A judgment may be right or wrong, but higher court judges cannot indulge in passing scathing remarks about trial judges merely because they do not agree with their point of view, the Supreme Court has cautioned the High Courts.

In a recent judgment, an Supreme Court Bench of Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose chastised the courts for using strong language against the subordinate judiciary in their judgments.

“We follow a system where the judgment of a court is subject to judicial scrutiny by higher courts. The judgment may be right or wrong, but the higher courts should not pass scathing remarks against the presiding officer of the lower courts only because they do not agree with the point of view of the trial court.”

The verdict came on a plea filed by a judicial officer presiding over a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.

The officer intervened in the spat between two lawyers in a case on which one of them should collect the fee when the case was compromised.

In appeal, the Allahabad High Court made disparaging comments in its judgment against the judicial officer.

The Supreme Court referred to judicial precedents which said the High Court may condemn a judicial officer if the latter’s actions were based on a corrupt motive. But such remarks cannot be made “light-heartedly” because the lower court judge has no way in law to vindicate his position.

“Our legal system acknowledges the fallibility of the judges and hence provides for appeals and revisions. A judge tries to discharge his duties to the best of his capacity. While doing so, sometimes, he is likely to err,” the judgment quoted from a decision of the apex court. It went on to expunge the remarks made by the High Court.

Woman pregnant for 20th time

10/09/2019, PRESS TRUST OF INDIA,MUMBAI

In a rare case, Lankabai Kharat, a 38-year-old woman from Maharashtra’s Beed district has become pregnant for the 20th time, doctors said. She has had 16 successful deliveries and three abortions and is now seven months’ pregnant, they said. However, only 11 of her children survived.

Need not pick incriminatory dying declaration, rules SC

‘It’s for the court to find out which version is true’

10/09/2019, LEGAL CORRESPONDENT,NEW DELHI

The Supreme Court gave the order on an appeal filed by a CRPF staffer.

In a case of divergent and multiple dying declarations, the court need not invariably pick the one that incriminates the accused person. Instead, it is for the court to find out which of the dying victim’s statement is true, the Supreme Court said in a recent judgment.

Divergent declarations

“When there are divergent dying declarations, it is not the law that the court must invariably prefer the statement which is incriminatory and must reject the statement which does not implicate the accused. The real point is to ascertain which contains the truth,” a Bench of Justices S.K. Kaul and K.M. Joseph observed.

The judgment was based on an appeal filed by a CRPF staffer convicted of murder and criminal intimidation. In 2008, he was accused of pouring kerosene over his wife and setting her ablaze.

Appeal dismissed

She gave two dying declarations. The first one did not implicate him. In the second one, she pointed the finger at him. The trial court convicted him and the Delhi High Court dismissed his appeal.

Confirming the lower courts’ decisions and cancelling his bail, Justice Joseph, writing for the Bench, reiterated the law that “any statement made by a person as to the cause of his death or to any circumstance of the transaction which resulted in his death would be relevant”.

Cannot be brushed aside

The judgment said, “Once it is proved that such statement is made by the deceased then it cannot be brushed aside on the basis that it is not elaborate or that it was not recorded in a particular fashion.”

Countering arguments that dying declarations could also be a result of “imagination running wild”, the apex court concluded that nothing in the case established the contention.

“In fact, there is no material before us to hold that the dying declaration is a creation of her imagination,” it observed.

Man hurls acid at student of Annamalai University

She is undergoing treatment for burns; students nab attacker

10/09/2019, SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT, CUDDALORE

A second-year girl student of Annamalai University suffered burn injuries after her classmate hurled toilet cleaning acid on her on the campus on Monday evening.

Police said the incident occurred around 8.30 p.m. Suchitra, hailing from Mayiladuthurai, is studying second year Bachelor of Physical Education (B.P.Ed).

The girl was walking home after attending classes when the accused, identified as Muthamizhan, hailing from the same area, accosted her near the Guest House on the campus.

An altercation ensued and he opened the bottle containing the acid and hurled it on her. Hearing the girl’s screams, students and onlookers overpowered Muthamizhan and thrashed him before handing him over to the police.

Suchitra sustained burn injuries on her face and has been admitted to the Rajah Muthiah Medical College and Hospital in Annamalai Nagar.

Police said Muthamizhan has been wooing the girl for the last five years. However, Suchitra did not respond to his overtures.

Enraged over this, he hurled acid on her. Further investigations are on.

Madurai advocates to boycott proceedings in support of CJ
Associations urge SC Collegium to reconsider her transfer

10/09/2019, STAFF REPORTER ,MADURAI

The Bar associations of both the Madras High Court Bench and the District Court in passed separate resolutions on Monday, affirming their support for Madras High Court Chief Justice Vijaya Kamlesh Tahilramani, who has resigned following her transfer to the High Court of Meghalaya. They requested the Supreme Court Collegium to reconsider the decision to transfer her.

In a resolution, the Madurai Bench Madras High Court Advocates’ Association and the Madurai Bar Association, which recently merged to form MBHAA-MBA, resolved to abstain from court proceedings indefinitely from September 10. The associations have also decided to stage a demonstration on the High Court Bench campus.

Apart from the request to the Supreme Court Collegium to reconsider the decision to transfer Ms. Tahilramani, the associations have appealed to the Chief Justice to withdraw her resignation. Members of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Bar Association have decided to write a letter to the Supreme Court Collegium, urging it to reconsider the decision to transfer the Chief Justice.

Bar associations of the Madurai District Court have also decided to boycott court proceedings on September 10. The Madurai Bar Association and the Madurai District Court Lawyers’ Association-Women, which boycotted court proceedings on September 9, will continue the boycott on September 10. The Lawyers’ Association of Madurai District Court will also join the boycott.

The Federation of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry Lawyers' Association has announced a State-wide court boycott on Tuesday to condemn Ms. Tahilramani’s transfer.

Members of the Federation demanded that the President not accept the Collegium’s recommendation to transfer her, and that she be allowed to continue as Chief Justice of the Madras High Court.

Ex-Judge to look into selection process

10/09/2019, STAFF REPORTER ,MADURAI

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has appointed retired High Court Judge D. Hariparanthaman to look into the legality and fairness of the selection process for appoint of staff to Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar College at Melaneelithanallur in Tirunelveli district.

Taking cognisance of allegations made over the functioning and management of the institution, a Division Bench of Justices M. Sathyanarayanan and B. Pugalendhi appointed the retired judge to look into the legality of the process. The case was adjourned till September 25 for filing of a report.

The court was hearing a petition that sought a direction to appoint a former judge as administrator to monitor the appointments and see if they were made in accordance with the by-laws of the institution. It was agreed to constitute a committee to look into the appointments of staff of the college, following which interviews were held. However, the results were not announced.

In order to ascertain the fairness of the selection process, the court appointed the retired judge to look into the records. The management was directed to assist the retired judge in this regard and pay a sum of ₹2 lakh as remuneration.