- 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
- 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
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Supreme Court Collegium Transfer Of Chief Justice V K Tahilramani
The Madras High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL), which challenged the Supreme Court Collegium's recommendation, to transfer former Madras High Court Chief Justice Vijaya Kamlesh Tahilramani to the Meghalaya High Court.The petitioner had contended that since the Collegium proposal is in the nature of an administrative order, it is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
The Madras High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL), which challenged the Supreme Court Collegium's recommendation, to transfer former Madras High Court Chief Justice Vijaya Kamlesh Tahilramani to the Meghalaya High Court.
The petitioner had contended that since the Collegium proposal is in the nature of an administrative order, it is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
Relying on Article 222 of the Constitution, it was argued that the decision to transfer judges between high courts could be taken only after consultation with the President of India.
It was also contended that while the Collegium may make decisions concerning the appointment of judges, it must consult the President before judges can be transferred.
However, after hearing the petitioner’s arguments, the Madras High Court expressed its reservations about the maintainability of the plea and opined that a High Court may not be the appropriate forum to address the petitioner's prayers.
The court observed that what the petitioner sought would require a review of Supreme Court precedents right from SP Gupta's case and pointed out that such a review cannot be made by a High Court.
Conceding that the matter has been raised in public interest, the court opined that the appropriate forum to present the petitioner's concerns would be the Parliament or the Supreme Court.
It may be recalled that the abrupt proposal by the Supreme Court to transfer former Madras High Court Chief Justice Tahilramani to the Meghalaya High Court recently had raised eyebrows, given that she was the senior-most judge among High Court judges in the country.
Days after the controversial transfer resolution was passed, former Madras High Court Chief Justice Tahilramani submitted her resignation on September 7. This led to protests 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, after the resignation of its former Chief Justice Tahilramani.