'What Is Lawyer's Interest In Judicial Officers' Transfer?' : Kerala HC Dismisses PIL Against Judges' Transfer During Pandemic

The Kerala High Court on Friday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation(PIL) petition filed by an advocate challenging the transfer of judicial officers of subordinate courts during the pandemic.

A division bench comprising Justice A Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Dr Kauser Edappagath observed that the petition does not appear to have been filed with bona-fide intentions. The bench observed that the it was a fit case to impose heavy costs but refrained from doing so.

"What is the interest of a lawyer in a judicial officer's transfer?", the bench asked the counsel for the petitioner. The bench told the counsel that no judicial officer has raised any grievance regarding the transfer.

"In fact many of them wanted transfer. These are maters between judicial officers and the court. What is the public interest?", the bench asked Advocate D Jayakrishnan, who was appearing for the petitioner-lawyer Sheeja M.S.

The counsel submitted that the judiciary should set an example for the executive by not forcing judicial officers to undertake travels on account of transfer during lockdown. He said that the general transfer in police has been put on hold due to the pandemic situation. In any event, the hearings are taking place through virtual mode and it does not make any difference if the judicial officer remains at the present station, the counsel argued.

However, the bench told the lawyer that many judicial officers have already been relieved and have joined their new stations.

"In the absence of any breach of Covid restrictions, how are you aggrieved? There are many officers who have secured admissions for their wards. How about those officers? You are acting against their interests. Suppose we pass an order, and they come before us, what can be done?", the bench asked.

When the bench asked if any judicial officer has conveyed to the petitioner any difficulties regarding the transfer, the counsel replied "it is common knowledge".

In the order dismissing the PIL, the bench observed :

"A lawyer has shown undue interest in the matter of judicial officers.... on a specific query being raised regarding any grievance being made by an judicial officer... the counsel was unable to answer such query...The petitioner was unable to point out any violation of existing law with regard to movement of judicial officer pursuant to general transfer order.

The uniformity of the transfer order focused on institutional interest and not on individual interest. If any individual greivance is raised, certainly that will be taken care of by the administration.

A PIL of this nature, perhaps appears to be moved without any bona fide intention. This would have been a case of dismissal with heavy costs. But we refrain from imposing cost, as we are not inclined to admit"