Gujarat High Court Advocates' Association Resolves To Seek Transfer Of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal

The Gujarat High Court Advocates Association in its extra ordinary general meeting on Monday (February 17) has resolved to seek the transfer of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal. 

As per the resolution, the bar body has resolved that, "The House further resolves to take appropriate steps, including seeking transfer of the Hon'ble Chief Justice within the frame work of law to ensure that the faith of litigants and the public in the judiciary is restored and that such practices do not recur in the future".

Resolving to send a copy of present resolution to the Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna the association has also  "unanimously" decided that a representation will be made to the CJI and other Collegium Judges of the Supreme Court of India, of recent incident, which has had the effect of lowering the image of the administration of justice.

The association had called for a meeting today to discuss recent incidents pertaining to the high court. The meeting was called to discuss and pass appropriate resolution concerning recent incidents reported with regard to sudden change in roster which has also been highlighted by senior advocate Asim Pandya in his letter addressed to President GHAA Brijesh Trivedi. 

During the meeting senior advocate Yatin Oza suggested that such issues should not be discussed in the general body meeting. 

Notably, senior advocate Asim Pandya had also written a letter to Bar President calling for the meeting, stating that two recent incidents of Chief Justice "suddenly taking away the business pertaining to contempt of court from one particular judge of the High Court of Gujarat and transferring the said business to another bench and the second incident of notifying the whole new roster with a cosmetic change by making an independent judge who was sitting as a single judge taking up criminal matter of quashing to sit in the bench of two judges" raised questions for the members of bar as to whether such decisions should be "tolerated or should be objected".

Pandya has said that these incidents have far-reaching impact on the "fundamental rights of the citizens", the rule of law and independence of judiciary. He said that while one of the judge's had been "very furious against the defiant government officers facing the charge of contempt of court and who was prompt in getting the orders of the court implemented through contempt jurisdiction", the other judge had been making scathing remarks about the "police abusing its power in entertaining applications involving a civil dispute" and pressurizing the parties to settle their disputes through police machinery.

Notably, as per February 1"list of sitting" of judges, Justice Sandeep Bhatt was hearing miscellaneous criminal applications filed under Section 482 CrPC (quashing petitions) from 2022 onwards, and applications under Section 528 BNSS from July 1, 2024 onwards, as well as special criminal applications (writ petitions) under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. As per February 14 "list of sitting" effective from Monday, Justice Bhatt is now sitting in division bench hearing detention matters, criminal convictions appeals and criminal enhancement appeals. 

"There is no dispute on the proposition of law that the Chief Justice is the master of roster and he or she is entitled to assign any business to any judge any time in the interest of administration of justice. The question is that when a particular business of a judge is suddenly taken away from him and assigned to another bench or the entire roster is re-notified with only a cosmetic change of asking a judge who had openly criticized the high court registry for the missing files and also police for abusing police machinery for settling civil disputes in contravention of the provisions of the applicable criminal law, does it auger well for the judicial independence of the institution?...It is now time to unite and stand up against an unfair treatment given to an independent judge for his judicial views either expressed during the hearing of a case or in the written order. An unfair criticism of the conduct of an officer, litigant or a lawyer in the order passed by the court without giving an opportunity to the concerned officer, litigant or a lawyer is a nullity and it can be corrected by getting the remarks expunged from the appropriate judicial forum. But a judge who makes such remarks cannot be treated unfairly by assigning his business to another bench or making him sit as a second judge in two judges' bench from his sitting as a single judge...," the letter stated. 

The bar president also had a heated exchange with the chief justice's bench after which the bench had deprecated his conduct. Subsequently the court had expunged its remarks on the President's conduct following his expression of regret over the incident. 

Click Here To Read/Download Resolution