News Updates

Madras HC Advocates Stage Protests Against Chief Justice Tahilramani's Transfer

9 Sep 2019 11:54 AM GMT
Madras HC Advocates Stage Protests Against Chief Justice Tahilramani
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

The advocates of Madras High Court on Monday staged protests over the proposal to transfer Chief Justice V K Tahilramani.

The Madras High Court Advocates Association has decided to do boycott Courts tomorrow as a mark of protest.

Justice Tahilramani, the senior most among the Chief Justices of High Courts in the country, was proposed to be transferred to Meghalaya High Court by the Supreme Court collegium. On September 3, the Collegium rejected her request to reconsider the prove.

Signalling protest against the proposal, Justice Tahilramani submitted her resignation to the President.

It is not a usual practice to transfer a Chief Justice to a smaller High Court. Madras High Court, a chartered High Court, has a sanctioned strength of 75 judges. Meghalaya High Court has at present two judges (including CJ) against a sanctioned strength of three judges. Her tenure as HC judge is till October 3, 2020.

Justice Tahilramani, who became a judge of Bombay High Court in June 2001, was appointed as the Chief Justice of Madras High Court in August 2018.

 The protesting advocates said that the transfer was wholly unwarranted and arbitrary.  They vouched for the integrity and efficiency of Justice Tahilramani, and said that the transfer was uncalled for.

Earlier, a group of lawyers had sent a representation to the Supreme Court seeking the withdrawal of the transfer proposal, saying "arbitrary transfers whittle away the independence of the judiciary and the confidence of judges".

Next Story