E-Paper
Centre notifies transfer of 3 HC judges after 7 months
The third judge to be transferred is justice Vipul M Pancholi who moves from the Gujarat high court to the Patna high court
New Delhi The Union government on Thursday notified the transfer of three high court judges, seven months after the Supreme Court collegium made the recommendations.
Justice Lalitha Kanneganti has been moved to the Karnataka high court from the Telangana high court, and justice D Ramesh has been shifted from the Andhra Pradesh high court judge to the Allahabad high court. The collegium, November 24 last year, made the recommendations for the transfer of these two judges along with five others. While the Centre notified the transfer of the other five judges, the transfers of these judges were withheld.
The third judge to be transferred is justice Vipul M Pancholi who moves from the Gujarat high court to the Patna high court. His proposal for transfer was mooted by the collegium on September 29 -- more than nine months ago.
Justice Pancholi’s transfer was opposed by the Gujarat High Court Advocates’ Association (GHCAA), stating it would be counterproductive to the administration of justice in the state.
Arjun Ram Meghwal, Union minister of law and justice, on Thursday announced on Twitter that the Centre has notified the transfers.
The Supreme Court collegium, which decides on matters of transfer includes the Chief Justice of India and the next four most senior judges. The convention, however, is to take views of the consultee judges for each decision. Consultee judges are those in the top court who have earlier served in the high courts where the judges being considered for elevation or transfer are currently posted. The collegium transfers judges for “better administration of justice”.
Article 222 of the Constitution makes provisions for the transfer of a judge, including the chief justice, from one high court to another. The memorandum of procedure (MoP), which guides the appointments and posting of the constitutional court judges, lays down that “all transfers are to be made in public interest i.e. for promoting better administration of justice throughout the country.”
MoP provides that after the recommendation of a transfer is received from the Chief Justice of India, the Union law minister submits the recommendation along with relevant papers to the Prime Minister, who then advises the President as to the transfer of the judge concerned.
The delay in notifying the transfers of judges was viewed seriously by the Supreme Court during its proceedings in January and February, when it took up a contempt plea against delays by the Union government in appointing judges. At that time, a bench led by justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul took strong exception to the government sitting over almost a dozen recommendations pertaining to the transfer of high court judges, making it clear that “any delay in transfers may result in administrative and judicial actions which may not be palatable”.
Warning the government against “any third-party interference in the transfer cases”, the bench at that time told attorney general R Venkataramani that the judicial work of the judges — proposed to be transferred, could be withdrawn if the recommendations are not implemented soon. It added that lack of consistency in the time taken by the Centre to notify the recommendations was creating “issues of faith” between the judiciary and the executive.
The top court’s comments came at a time when the judiciary and the executive were locked in a tussle over judicial appointments. Then law minister Kiren Rijiju issued a series of statements criticising the manner in which the collegium functioned and questioning the division of powers between the two organs.
Between December and February, the top court, in a series of judicial proceedings, responded with reminders to the government that the collegium system is the law of the land that must be followed by the government “to a T”, while saying that the Centre had delayed a number of decisions without giving adequate reasons.
