SIGNS OF TURMOIL IN MADRAS HC AFTER THREE YEARS OF PEACE
Madras Bar Association Is Debating The Decision To Transfer The Chief Justice 09.09.2019
A Subramani & Sureshkumar K TNN
The spectacle of belligerent speeches, threat of boycott and conspiracy theories over appointment and transfer of judges has returned to Madras high court, endangering the three-yearlong atmosphere of campus peace.
The famed Madras Bar is frenetically debating the Supreme Court collegium’s decision to transfer the incumbent Chief Justice of the court, Justice Vijaya K Tahilramani, to the high court of Meghalaya ‘for better administration’ of justice.
Now that she has resigned, and made her decision public, too, is there an option for the President or the apex court collegium to either reject it or not take a decision on it? No, said a jurist, adding: “As a constitutional authority, the moment she resigned, she demits office. Only condition being she should have written the resignation letter as mentioned in Article 124(2)(a) and have addressed it to the proper person, which in this case is the President.”
Asked about the Madras Bar Association’s (MBA) resolution calling upon the President not to ‘accept’ the resignation, the jurist said, “now that she has made it public, there is no question of the Bar pleading for such an indulgence. Only notification of the vacancy and entrusting the judicial work to the next seniormost judge till the new chief justice assumes charge, remain.”
Responding to the brewing unrest, designated senior advocate and cochairman of Bar Council of India (BCI) S Prabakaran said, “suitability cannot be questioned either through judicial review or court boycotts, and that is trite law,” adding, “five seniormost judges of the nation have taken a decision by applying their collective wisdom and after due deliberations. Responding to it with a resignation letter cannot be appreciated.”
As for the proposed boycott on Tuesday, which is followed by a court holiday on Wednesday for Muharram, Prabakaran said, “BCI being the highest statutory and regulatory body, it does not comment upon either the collegium’s decision or the local Bar’s boycott call. BCI will not interfere in the issue.”
While senior advocate A E Chelliah too expressed his unhappiness about the Bar going on strike over the Justice Tahilramani issue, president of Madras High Court Advocates Association (MHAA) G Mohanakrishnan said the boycott was because the transfer of the chief justice to the Meghalaya high court was most unusual.
“Though all high courts are on the same footing under the Constitution, shifting her to Meghalaya will morally devastate the judge whose home court is another chartered high court. Had she been shifted to another court of equal or larger size, it would not have mattered,” Mohanakrishnan said.
“It is like transferring a college principal to an elementary school as its headmaster,” he said justifying Tuesday’s boycott call.
Earlier in the day, the Madras Bar Association held an extraordinary general body meeting at 1.45pm and unanimously resolved to appeal to the Supreme Court collegium to reconsider its decision to transfer Justice Tahilramani to the Meghalaya high court. It also made a simultaneous appeal to Justice Tahilramani to withdraw her resignation. It also urged the President and the Union government not to accept her resignation and the collegium’s recommendation. Advocates, headed by designated senior advocate R Vaigai also held a lunch-hour demonstration on the court premises, condemning the transfer.
AT THE CENTRE: Chief Justice Vijaya Tahilramani submitted her resignation after she was transferred to the Meghalaya high court
Madras Bar Association Is Debating The Decision To Transfer The Chief Justice 09.09.2019
A Subramani & Sureshkumar K TNN
The spectacle of belligerent speeches, threat of boycott and conspiracy theories over appointment and transfer of judges has returned to Madras high court, endangering the three-yearlong atmosphere of campus peace.
The famed Madras Bar is frenetically debating the Supreme Court collegium’s decision to transfer the incumbent Chief Justice of the court, Justice Vijaya K Tahilramani, to the high court of Meghalaya ‘for better administration’ of justice.
Now that she has resigned, and made her decision public, too, is there an option for the President or the apex court collegium to either reject it or not take a decision on it? No, said a jurist, adding: “As a constitutional authority, the moment she resigned, she demits office. Only condition being she should have written the resignation letter as mentioned in Article 124(2)(a) and have addressed it to the proper person, which in this case is the President.”
Asked about the Madras Bar Association’s (MBA) resolution calling upon the President not to ‘accept’ the resignation, the jurist said, “now that she has made it public, there is no question of the Bar pleading for such an indulgence. Only notification of the vacancy and entrusting the judicial work to the next seniormost judge till the new chief justice assumes charge, remain.”
Responding to the brewing unrest, designated senior advocate and cochairman of Bar Council of India (BCI) S Prabakaran said, “suitability cannot be questioned either through judicial review or court boycotts, and that is trite law,” adding, “five seniormost judges of the nation have taken a decision by applying their collective wisdom and after due deliberations. Responding to it with a resignation letter cannot be appreciated.”
As for the proposed boycott on Tuesday, which is followed by a court holiday on Wednesday for Muharram, Prabakaran said, “BCI being the highest statutory and regulatory body, it does not comment upon either the collegium’s decision or the local Bar’s boycott call. BCI will not interfere in the issue.”
While senior advocate A E Chelliah too expressed his unhappiness about the Bar going on strike over the Justice Tahilramani issue, president of Madras High Court Advocates Association (MHAA) G Mohanakrishnan said the boycott was because the transfer of the chief justice to the Meghalaya high court was most unusual.
“Though all high courts are on the same footing under the Constitution, shifting her to Meghalaya will morally devastate the judge whose home court is another chartered high court. Had she been shifted to another court of equal or larger size, it would not have mattered,” Mohanakrishnan said.
“It is like transferring a college principal to an elementary school as its headmaster,” he said justifying Tuesday’s boycott call.
Earlier in the day, the Madras Bar Association held an extraordinary general body meeting at 1.45pm and unanimously resolved to appeal to the Supreme Court collegium to reconsider its decision to transfer Justice Tahilramani to the Meghalaya high court. It also made a simultaneous appeal to Justice Tahilramani to withdraw her resignation. It also urged the President and the Union government not to accept her resignation and the collegium’s recommendation. Advocates, headed by designated senior advocate R Vaigai also held a lunch-hour demonstration on the court premises, condemning the transfer.
AT THE CENTRE: Chief Justice Vijaya Tahilramani submitted her resignation after she was transferred to the Meghalaya high court
No comments:
Post a Comment