Arbitrary transfer will affect rule of law

The sudden transfer of Madras High Court Chief Justice Vijaya Tahil Ramani has raised eyebrows and the decision to transfer her to Meghalaya state is being questioned from various quarters.

The transfer has become a hot topic for discussion but nothing fruitful has emerged from such discussions and debates.  Even the President of India, elected by the public and governors enjoy immunity from legal actions. Similarly there are restrictions against initiating action against chief justices.

Why does the law prevents taking action against them? This special status has been given to them to ensure that they discharge their duties without any fear and being intimidated.  Not that they will not commit mistakes. Even if they have erred in their duty, the style of their standing trial in a court of law will be entirely different.

A special bench has been constituted to hear cases against chief justices. Other judges are not competent and qualified to hear the cases.
But the Attorney General’s view that only retired judges should hear the cases does not seem to be right. It is also not right to create a situation in which no one will have any confidence on anybody.

It should be understood that knowing full well that those who are up in arms against chief justice belong to a handful of crowd are only belittling the image of judiciary and it will affect the rule of law.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *