Only Transferred Judge Can Challenge, No One Else: Madras HC Rejects Plea Challenging Justice VK Tahilaramani Transfer [Read Judgment]

The division bench comprising of Justice M. Sathyanarayanan and Justice N. Seshasayee observed that the challenge to the order of transfer can be made only at the instance of the transferred Judge himself and not anyone else and as such, the petitioner has no locus standi to maintain this writ petition.

M.Karpagam, a recently enrolled Advocate, had filed a Public Interest Litigation, seeking a Writ of Prohibition, prohibiting the President of India from giving effect to the proposal for transfer of Justice V.K.Tahilramani to Meghalaya High Court. She stated before the Court that the transfer had shaken dreams of budding young women lawyers like her. Issues she had raised in the writ petition were as follows:

• Whether, second transfer of Chief Justice of a High Court to another High Court is permissible? especially in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
• Whether the proposal for transfer of Chief Justice of a High Court can only be done by the President of India or by the Collegium of the Supreme Court itself
• Whether non-consent of the Chief Justice of the High Court for transfer to another High Court can be over-turned or not? If so, by whom?
• Whether the Chief Justice of a High Court could be transferred at the verge of retirement, or not?
• Whether the office of the Chief Justice of a High Court is transferable, or not ?
• Whether mutual transfer of Chief Justices of High Courts can be made or not?

However, the bench only considered the issue whether the petitioner is having locus standi to maintain this writ petition? The bench, referred to the judgment in Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record Association and Others v. Union of India & S.P.Gupta v. Union of India and highlighted the following observations made in the judgment:

• Consent of the transferred Judge/Chief Justice is not required for either the first or any subsequent transfer from one High Court to another.

  Any transfer made on the recommendation of the Chief Justice of India is not to be deemed to be punitive, and such transfer is not justiciable on any ground.
  

• In making all appointments and transfers, the norms indicated must be followed. However, the same do not confer any justiciable right in anyone.

• Only limited judicial review on the grounds specified earlier is available in matters of appointments and transfers.

It also referred to K.Ashok Reddy v. Government of India wherein it was held that the transfer of a High Court Judge is justiciable only on the ground indicated in Judges' Case-II and only at the instance of the transferred Judge himself and not anyone else. While dismissing the PIL, the bench observed:

The decision in K.Ashok Reddy's case (cited supra) gives complete answer to the grounds urged by the petitioner. The said decision also laid down the proposition that the transfer of a High Court Judge is justiciable only on the ground indicated in Judges' Case-II and challenge to the order of transfer only at the instance of the transferred Judge himself and not anyone else and as such, the petitioner has no locus standi to maintain this writ petition.

Incidentally, it is to be noted that the decision to transfer Hon'ble Mrs.Justice V.K.Tahilramani was taken by the Collegium of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, consisting of the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India and four senior-most Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in the light of the ratio laid down in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association's case (cited supra), which has been explained and affirmed by the later decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in K.Ashok Reddy's case (cited supra), the petitioner is not entitled to maintain this writ petition.

Click here to Read/Download Judgment