NEW DELHI: In a surprising development, Supreme Court’s five-judge collegium led by CJI B R Gavai has spelled out the reason — Union govt’s objection — for changing the transfer destination of Madhya Pradesh HC’s Justice Atul Sreedharan from Chhattisgarh HC to Allahabad HC.
Two months ago, the collegium had uploaded a statement on its August 25-26 meetings that resulted in recommending Centre transfer 14 judges from HCs where they were discharging their duties to other ones. Justice Sreedharan’s name figured at the top of the list, specifying that he was being transferred from MP HC to Chhattisgarh HC.
On October 14, the collegium statement said it acceded to the government’s request for reconsideration of Justice Sreedharan’s transfer to Chhattisgarh, where he would have been senior enough to be part of the HC collegium, and “resolved to recommend” his transfer from MP HC to Allahabad HC, where he would not be in the collegium.
This incident brings to fore the increasing influence of Centre, which in the past has stalled or long delayed giving effect to three-judge SC collegium decisions recommending appointments of several persons as HC judges, in the sphere of transfers. SC through its judgments had given primacy to the collegium in matters of appointment and transfers of HC and SC judges.
Interestingly, recommendations of the same five-member collegium for appointment of SC judges have been notified with extreme expedition, sometimes in 48 hours, by the government in the past. However, several recommendations by the collegium, comprising CJI and four most senior judges, for transfers have been selectively put in cold storage by the government without assigning any reason. Surprisingly, the SC collegium through CJI has not made attempts to give effect to its recommendations pertaining to transfers.
This has left those HC judges, whose transfers have been recommended by the collegium but not given effect, in a piquant situation — whether to take up cases that require detailed hearing or to wind up pending work.
A similar incident took place eight years ago. Then 5-J collegium led by incumbent CJI Dipak Misra had recommended transfer of Karnataka HC’s Justice Jayant Patil, who during his stint at Gujarat HC had ordered a probe into the Ishrat Jahan case, to Bombay HC.
The government immediately conveyed its disagreement to the proposal. The collegium hurriedly met at the residence of one of the judges and changed the transfer destination to Allahabad HC. Justice Patil tendered his resignation to the President.
Two months ago, the collegium had uploaded a statement on its August 25-26 meetings that resulted in recommending Centre transfer 14 judges from HCs where they were discharging their duties to other ones. Justice Sreedharan’s name figured at the top of the list, specifying that he was being transferred from MP HC to Chhattisgarh HC.
On October 14, the collegium statement said it acceded to the government’s request for reconsideration of Justice Sreedharan’s transfer to Chhattisgarh, where he would have been senior enough to be part of the HC collegium, and “resolved to recommend” his transfer from MP HC to Allahabad HC, where he would not be in the collegium.
This incident brings to fore the increasing influence of Centre, which in the past has stalled or long delayed giving effect to three-judge SC collegium decisions recommending appointments of several persons as HC judges, in the sphere of transfers. SC through its judgments had given primacy to the collegium in matters of appointment and transfers of HC and SC judges.
Interestingly, recommendations of the same five-member collegium for appointment of SC judges have been notified with extreme expedition, sometimes in 48 hours, by the government in the past. However, several recommendations by the collegium, comprising CJI and four most senior judges, for transfers have been selectively put in cold storage by the government without assigning any reason. Surprisingly, the SC collegium through CJI has not made attempts to give effect to its recommendations pertaining to transfers.
This has left those HC judges, whose transfers have been recommended by the collegium but not given effect, in a piquant situation — whether to take up cases that require detailed hearing or to wind up pending work.
A similar incident took place eight years ago. Then 5-J collegium led by incumbent CJI Dipak Misra had recommended transfer of Karnataka HC’s Justice Jayant Patil, who during his stint at Gujarat HC had ordered a probe into the Ishrat Jahan case, to Bombay HC.
The government immediately conveyed its disagreement to the proposal. The collegium hurriedly met at the residence of one of the judges and changed the transfer destination to Allahabad HC. Justice Patil tendered his resignation to the President.
You may also like
Samantha Ruth Prabhu on facing judgment and trolls: My personal struggles have been very public
Bakingo's New Fusion Desserts Promise a Flavorful Diwali
DDA launches new housing scheme in East Delhi, offering 1,000 flats
Jos Verstappen's stance on becoming F1 team boss as brutal McLaren comment issued
India tries to balance US, Russia ties in pursuit of Trump deal
