Modi-Shah brand on rampage,In Supreme Court

Modi-Shah brand on rampage,In Supreme Court

Modi-Shah brand on rampage,In Supreme Court
September 11
05:46 2019

Are Amit Shah and Narendra Modi rue hell bent on exiting every one , bureaucrats, judges and contemporary BJP leaders, so that they could rule without any handicaps ?

The transfer of Chief Justice Vijaya K. Tahilramani from the Madras High Court to Meghalaya is shocking and disconcerting. She had presided over a court of 75 judges and administered a subordinate judiciary in 32 districts in addition to the Union Territory of Puducherry. In contrast, the Meghalaya High Court has only three judges and a PJB subordinate judiciary in just seven districts.

Earlier, in 2017, Justice Jayant Patel, who was slated to be appointed Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court, had resigned when he was transferred to the Allahabad High Court. Significantly, he was a member of the Bench of the Gujarat High Court that had ordered a CBI probe in the Ishrat Jahan encounter case.

In the past, the functioning of the collegium has attracted much criticism, largely due to aberrations in certain selections and transfers. Retired Supreme Court judge, Justice Ruma Pal, had in 2011 called the functioning of the body a “mystique” shrouded in “secrecy”. Later, the government’s attempt to have a National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was rejected by the Supreme Court in 2015 and the system of collegium has continued with its opaqueness and inconsistencies.

Ironically, Justice A.K. Mittal, who has been recommended to replace Justice Tahilramani, was superseded in 2018.

Due to the puzzling facts relating to Justice Tahilramani’s transfer, rumours are rife on social media and in court corridors. The media has reported that the transfer is a reaction to her judgment in the Bilkis Bano case that concerned the Gujarat riots of 2002. It is also speculated by some that personal prejudices of some Supreme Court judges resulted in the transfer.

Here, Justice Ruma Pal’s revelations in 2011 that consensus in the collegium was often arrived at by “trade-offs” with “disastrous consequences” and that “sycophancy” and “lobbying” had coloured the appointments are ominous. Such actions shake the faith of the public in the judges’ functioning.

Justice Tahilramani, by resigning, stands tall as a pillar of courage. One is reminded of Justice H.R. Khanna, who had braved intense political pressure to dissent in the ADM Jabalpur case (Habeas Corpus case) during the Emergency and chose to resign when faced with supersession.

The resignation of a judge with 17 years of judicial service, just a year before her retirement, has to raise alarm bells about the health of the system. Protest demonstrators were held yesterday at the Madras high court against chief judges transfer.



About Author



Related Articles


No Comments Yet!

There are no comments at the moment, do you want to add one?

Write a comment

Write a Comment