Tuesday, Aug 11, 2020 | Last Update : 07:00 PM IST

140th Day Of Lockdown

Maharashtra52451335842118050 Tamil Nadu3028752446755041 Andhra Pradesh2355251456362116 Karnataka182354991263312 Delhi1461341316574131 Uttar Pradesh126722767212120 West Bengal98459671202059 Bihar8274154139450 Telangana8075157586637 Gujarat71064542382652 Assam5883842326145 Rajasthan5249738235789 Odisha4592731785321 Haryana4163534781483 Madhya Pradesh3902529020996 Kerala3433121832109 Jammu and Kashmir2489717003472 Punjab2390315319586 Jharkhand185168998177 Chhatisgarh12148880996 Uttarakhand96326134125 Goa871259575 Tripura6161417641 Puducherry5382320187 Manipur3752204411 Himachal Pradesh3371218114 Nagaland30119738 Arunachal Pradesh223115923 Chandigarh1595100425 Meghalaya11154986 Sikkim9105101 Mizoram6203230
  Opinion   Edit  06 Sep 2019  Opaque transfer of Madras CJ

Opaque transfer of Madras CJ

THE ASIAN AGE.
Published : Sep 6, 2019, 2:31 am IST
Updated : Sep 6, 2019, 2:31 am IST

The numbers show the disparity, that raises questions about fair play.

Supreme Court
 Supreme Court

The Supreme Court collegium’s decision to transfer Madras high court chief justice Vijaya Kamlesh Tahilramani to the Meghalaya high court doesn’t seem to be in consonance with sound principles of managing the justice system. The comparative size, stature and judges' strength of the two high courts is vastly different. The judge, one of two women serving as high court chief justices, is being moved from one of the statutory courts set up in the 19th century in the Raj days, with a sanctioned judge strength of 75, to the country’s smallest high court, with three judges, including the chief justice.

The numbers show the disparity, that raises questions about fair play. The judge, who has at times served as acting chief justice of the Bombay high court, had in 2017 delivered the judgment in the Bilkis Bano case, where she upheld the life terms of 11 convicts for the gangrape and murder of her family in the 2002 Gujarat riots, while setting aside the acquittal of seven persons, including police officers and doctors.

 

Having assumed charge of all appointments to the higher judiciary, the collegium, comprising the five seniormost Supreme Court judges, including the CJI, may enjoy all  powers to make recommendations to the government on appointments and transfers. Of its own volition, the collegium declared transparency as one of its top priorities and passed a resolution in 2017 pledging to uphold it, ensuring confidentiality. The current transfer of the Madras CJ is a fit case for the collegium to keep its promise. How can such a transfer, from one of the country’s historic high courts to its smallest, with or without the judge’s consent, be in the interest of better administration of justice?

 

Tags: supreme court, vijaya kamlesh tahilramani