Centre give Madras HC judge till December 20 to assume Kerala HC post
The ultimatum followed a communication from Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, who urged the government to prescribe a firm outer limit for Justice Banu to take charge in Kerala
New Delhi: The Union government on Friday ordered justice J Nisha Banu of the Madras high court to assume charge at the Kerala high court on or before December 20, escalating a two-month standoff triggered by the judge’s refusal to take up her new post despite a formal transfer notification issued in October.
According to people familiar with the matter, the ultimatum followed a communication from Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, who urged the government to prescribe a firm outer limit for Justice Banu to take charge in Kerala.
“CJI Surya Kant wrote to the Union law minister earlier this week, seeking the President’s intervention,” one of the persons cited above said. The letter, the person added, specifically requested that the government fix a clear deadline for justice Banu to assume her new post.
The Friday notification, issued “after consultation with the Chief Justice of India”, reminds justice Banu that her transfer was already notified on October 14 and effectively serves as an ultimatum. “The President… is pleased to direct Smt Justice J Nisha Banu… to assume charge… on or before 20.12.2025,” the notification states.
“CJI Surya Kant had written to the Union law minister earlier this week, requesting intervention by the President in this matter. The letter urged the government to fix a deadline for justice Banu to take up her new post,” said one of the persons cited above.
The unusually explicit deadline signals mounting concern within the government and the higher judiciary over the implications of a sitting judge declining to move after a lawful transfer under Article 222 of the Constitution.
Earlier in the day, the issue reached the Lok Sabha, where Congress MP K M Sudha R asked whether justice Banu continued to function as part of the Madras High Court collegium, whether she had participated in recommending new judges, and whether she had sought reconsideration of her transfer.
While the government avoided answering these questions directly, law minister Arjun Ram Meghwal recited the constitutional framework governing appointments and transfers, emphasising that a judge must vacate her current office upon transfer.
Referring to Article 217(1)(c), he said: “The office of a Judge shall be vacated… by his being transferred by the President to any other High Court.” Meghwal underscored that transfers are initiated by the CJI in consultation with the four senior-most Supreme Court judges, and that the CJI’s view is “determinative”. The CJI also considers the views of both the outgoing and incoming High Court Chief Justices, the personal circumstances of the judge, and the public interest.
“All transfers are to be made in public interest, i.e., for promoting better administration of justice throughout the country,” the reply added.
Justice Banu’s continued presence at the Madras high court has triggered a constitutional and procedural standoff over the validity of the high court’s recent collegium decisions.
On November 9, the Madras high court collegium recommended six district judges for elevation. The Tamil Nadu government did not raise any objections on merit. Instead, it questioned the very composition of the collegium.
Justice Banu, elevated to the High Court in 2016 and currently the second senior-most judge, is, by order of seniority, a collegium member. However, following the Supreme Court collegium’s October 14 recommendation transferring her to Kerala, the Madras High Court collegium substituted her with the next judge in line, Justice M S Ramesh. The state government formally sought clarification on this point, asking whether such a substitution had any basis in constitutional principle or any direction from the Supreme Court.
