THE TRIBUNE, NEW DELHI, October 20, 2010, P. 10
Debate on CJs’ appointment
I read The Tribune debate on the policy of appointment of High Court Chief Justice from outside the state (Sept 9, 13, 14 and Oct 6). The present policy is based on the decision to have one-third of the judges of a High Court from outside the state following serious deliberations in the Constituent Assembly, the States Reorganisation Commission, the Law Commission, the Administrative Reforms Commission, etc. The Supreme Court, in its various rulings, has also ratified it.
The common grouse against the present policy is that the Chief Justice from outside the state is not familiar with the local Bar, the practices and rules of the new High Court and the subordinate judiciary and that his tenure generally is too short to enable him find his feet in the new High Court. The Supreme Court in SC Advocates-On-Record Association v Union of India (1994) ruled: “It may be desirable to transfer in advance the seniormost Judge due for appointment as Chief Justice to the High Court where he is likely to be appointed Chief Justice, to enable him to take over as Chief Justice as soon as the vacancy arises and, in the meantime, acquaint himself with the new High Court”.
The recent transfer of Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Acting Chief Justice of the Guwahati High Court to the Punjab and Haryana High Court is in line with the said decision of the Supreme Court and needs to be replicated invariably in every case. Moreover, while denouncing the present policy of transfer, we must not lose sight of the rampant scourge of “uncle judges” that is badly sullying the judiciary’s fair image.
RAJENDER GOYAL,
M.D. University, Rohtak
Debate on CJs’ appointment
I read The Tribune debate on the policy of appointment of High Court Chief Justice from outside the state (Sept 9, 13, 14 and Oct 6). The present policy is based on the decision to have one-third of the judges of a High Court from outside the state following serious deliberations in the Constituent Assembly, the States Reorganisation Commission, the Law Commission, the Administrative Reforms Commission, etc. The Supreme Court, in its various rulings, has also ratified it.
The common grouse against the present policy is that the Chief Justice from outside the state is not familiar with the local Bar, the practices and rules of the new High Court and the subordinate judiciary and that his tenure generally is too short to enable him find his feet in the new High Court. The Supreme Court in SC Advocates-On-Record Association v Union of India (1994) ruled: “It may be desirable to transfer in advance the seniormost Judge due for appointment as Chief Justice to the High Court where he is likely to be appointed Chief Justice, to enable him to take over as Chief Justice as soon as the vacancy arises and, in the meantime, acquaint himself with the new High Court”.
The recent transfer of Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Acting Chief Justice of the Guwahati High Court to the Punjab and Haryana High Court is in line with the said decision of the Supreme Court and needs to be replicated invariably in every case. Moreover, while denouncing the present policy of transfer, we must not lose sight of the rampant scourge of “uncle judges” that is badly sullying the judiciary’s fair image.
RAJENDER GOYAL,
M.D. University, Rohtak
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment