Madras High Court dismisses plea challenging Collegium transfer of Chief Justice VK Tahilramani

The Madras High Court today dismissed the PIL challenging the Supreme Court Collegium’s recommendation to transfer former Chief Justice VK Tahilramani to the Meghalaya High Court..The judgment was pronounced this morning by a Bench of Justices M Sathyanarayanan and N Seshasayee, which had reserved orders in the matter last Friday, shortly before the President notified Chief Justice Tahilramani’s resignation the same day..After examining the law laid down in the Three Judges case as well as K Ashok Reddy v. Government of India and Others, the Bench eventually concluded that the petitioner did not have the locus standi to maintain the petition. In this regard, the judgment notes,.“The decision in K.Ashok Reddy’s case (cited supra) gives complete answer to the grounds urged by the petitioner. The said decision also laid down the proposition that the transfer of a High Court Judge is justiciable only on the ground indicated in Judges’ Case-II and challenge to the order of transfer only at the instance of the transferred Judge himself and not anyone else and as such, the petitioner has no locus standi to maintain this writ petition.….…Incidentally, it is to be noted that the decision to transfer Hon’ble Mrs.Justice V.K.Tahilramani was taken by the Collegium of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, consisting of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India and four senior-most Hon’ble Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in the light of the ratio laid down in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association’s case (cited supra), which has been explained and affirmed by the later decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in K.Ashok Reddy’s case (cited supra), the petitioner is not entitled to maintain this writ petition.“.The Bench also added that after the petition was filed, Chief Justice Tahilramani’s resignation has been accepted by the President, leaving nothing further to be adjudicated upon..“This Court can also take judicial notice of the fact that subsequent to reiteration of the decision taken by the Collegium of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to transfer Hon’ble Mrs.Justice V.K.Tahilramani, Chief Justice of Madras High Court to Meghalaya High Court, the Hon’ble Judge has tendered her resignation and it was also accepted by His Excellency, The President of India.. The Ministry of Law and Justice … has also issued a notification dated 20.09.2019, intimating the appointment of Hon’ble Dr.Justice Vineet Kothari, senior-most Judge of this Court to perform the duties of the office of the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court and on account of the said development also, nothing remains for adjudication in this writ petition.” .In view of these observations, the Division Bench proceeded to dismiss the plea as not maintainable..The petitioner in the case, Advocate M Karpagam, had contended that since the Collegium proposal is in the nature of an administrative order, it is amendable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court..Appearing for Karpagam on Friday, Advocate R Prabakaran had challenged the Collegium resolution, arguing that it was made “without making any reference to the President (of India).” Relying on Article 222 of the Constitution, he argued that the decision to transfer judges between High Courts could be taken only after consultation with the President..While the Collegium may make decisions concerning the appointment of judges, Prabakaran contended that the President must be consulted before judges can be transferred..The Bench had, however, expressed its reservations about the maintainability of the plea on Friday. It had opined that the High Court may not be the appropriate forum to address the petitioner’s prayers..After hearing arguments made by the petitioner, the Bench had observed that what is being sought by the petitioner would require a review of Supreme Court precedents (particularly the Three Judges cases) right from SP Gupta’s case. The Bench pointed out that such review cannot be made by the High Court..It was also observed that many of the concerns raised by the arguing counsel have been addressed by the Supreme Court in the Ashok Reddy and the NJAC cases. In this backdrop, the Court pointed out that it is bound to follow the law laid down in these cases..While the matter may have been brought in public interest, the Bench opined that the appropriate forum to present the petitioner’s concerns would be Parliament or the Supreme Court..The abrupt proposal to transfer Chief Justice Tahilramani to the Meghalaya High Court earlier this month had raised eyebrows, given that she was the senior-most judge among High Court judges in the country. Before being appointed as Madras High Court Chief Justice, Tahilramani was heading the Bombay High Court as its Acting Chief Justice..Days after the controversial transfer resolution was passed, Chief Justice Tahilramani submitted her resignation on September 7. In the ensuing days, protest was registered over the controversial proposal from various quarters, including associations of the Madras Bar. On September 10, lawyers across Tamil Nadu also carried out a one-day court boycott..The rising chorus of protest against the transfer of Tahilramani CJ also prompted the Collegium to issue a statement revealing that it has no hesitation in disclosing reasons for transfer of judges, if found necessary..A notification dated September 20 was issued, intimating the appointment of Justice Vineet Kothari as the Acting Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, in view of the resignation of Chief Justice Tahilramani..Bar & Bench is available on WhatsApp. For real-time updates on stories, Click here to subscribe to our WhatsApp.