- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Latur Bar Association In Maharashtra State Goes On Strike Against Madras HC Chief Justice Tahilramani's Transfer
[ By Bobby Anthony ]Latur’s District Bar Association and other bar associations comprising more than 1,800 advocates refused to participate in any judicial work protesting against the recent Supreme Court collegium’s decision to transfer former Madras High Court Chief Justice Vijaya Kamlesh Tahilramani to the Meghalaya High Court.The Maharashtra-based Latur Bar Association has also...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Latur’s District Bar Association and other bar associations comprising more than 1,800 advocates refused to participate in any judicial work protesting against the recent Supreme Court collegium’s decision to transfer former Madras High Court Chief Justice Vijaya Kamlesh Tahilramani to the Meghalaya High Court.
The Maharashtra-based Latur Bar Association has also written what it called a ‘Letter of Protest’ dated September 11, to the Registrar of the Supreme Court of India and also the President of India.
The Latur District Bar Association letter has stated that the manner in which former Madras High Court Chief Justice Vijaya Kamlesh Tahilramani was transferred to a much smaller Meghalaya High Court by the Supreme Court collegium has created doubts about the independence of the judiciary.
According to the protest letter, the transfer of the former Madras High Court Chief Justice lacked grace and is suggestive of humiliation, especially since it came when the former Madras High Court Chief Justice was due to retire on September 2020.
It may be recalled that former Chief Justice Vijaya Kamlesh Tahilramani resigned recently protesting against the transfer, after which she also made her intentions public during a dinner hosted by Madras High Court judges.
She resigned after the Supreme Court collegium consisting of Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, Justices SA Bobde, NV Ramana, Arun Mishra and R F Nariman rejected her request to reconsider the transfer proposal, which was made on August 28.
After she resigned, she also abstained from court proceedings even before her resignation was accepted.
Incidentally, former Chief Justice Vijaya Kamlesh Tahilramani was born in Latur on October 3, 1958.
Justice Tahilramani was appointed as Chief Justice of the Madras High Court on August 8, 2018, transferred from Bombay High Court where she was acting chief justice between 2015 and 2017.
During her tenure at the Bombay High Court, Justice Tahilramani had on May 7, 2017, upheld the conviction and life imprisonment of 11 people in the post-Gujarat riots Bilkis Bano gangrape case, while setting aside the acquittal of seven persons, including policemen and doctors.
The Bilkis Bano case had been transferred to Maharashtra from Gujarat by the Supreme Court.