New Delhi, Nov 12: The transfer of Madras High Court Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee to the “less important” High Court of Meghalaya, as recommended by the Supreme Court Collegium, has met with opposition.
Over 200 advocates – many of them senior – have jointly written to the Supreme Court protesting the “punitive measure” taken against “an honest and fearless judge”.
In a representation to the Chief Justice of India, NV Ramana and the Supreme Court Collegium, the advocates sought the reconsideration of the decision.
The transfer of Justice Banerjee from the Madras High Court, which has a sanctioned strength of 75 judges, to the High Court of Meghalaya, which was established in 2013 and has a current strength of just two judges, raises disconcerting questions, the advocates said.
“While transfers for better administration of justice may be necessary in principle, members of the Bar have a right to know why a competent, fearless judge and an efficient administrator of a larger High Court, where more than 35,000 cases were filed in a year, should be transferred to a court where the total number of cases instituted in a month is on an average of 70-75 only,” they asked.
They also wrote that Justice Banerjee has consistently sought accountability from authorities at all levels in their discharge of constitutional and statutory duties.
“He is known to be impartial, open to suggestions from all quarters for improving the functioning of the justice system and has undertaken proactive measures to strengthen the judiciary,” the letter reads.
Justice Banerjee assumed the office of Chief Justice of Madras High Court in January this year and is expected to retire in November 2023.
In 2019, Vijay Tahilramani had resigned as the Chief Justice of Madras High Court when the Supreme Court Collegium transferred her to the High Court of Meghalaya.
The representation to the CJI further said short tenures and abrupt transfers stand in the way of a cohesive leadership and meaningful administrative reforms.
“A change of Chief Justice every few months will have an adverse impact on not just the administrative functioning of the High Court, crucial decisions to be taken by the High Court Collegium will be delayed or suffer from the loss/lack of experience that is gained over several months,” the advocates pointed out.
They said the instant transfer would quell any effort to stem corruption at high places to strengthen the judiciary in the state.
Such “punishment transfers”, came to be known during the infamous Emergency and it sends out an alarming signal that honest and fearless judges, who are subjected to political retribution and independence of the judiciary, is under threat, the advocates wrote.
Whether it is “punishment transfer” or “punitive transfer”, it is important that the reasons for the transfer of any judge should be made transparent in public interest, for the public ought to know if a judge is being victimised for his fearless actions or punished for his inconvenient actions, the representation reads.
“Unfortunately, the decision of the Supreme Court Collegium and the opacity around it seem to set alarm bells ringing amidst the public and all participants in the justice system,” it further said.
After a spate of “punishment transfers” of upright judges by the Central government during the Emergency, the judiciary arrogated to itself the power in order to preserve judicial independence. Thus, the Collegium system consisting of the CJI and four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court was put in place.