The Supreme Court collegiums’ decision to transfer Madras High Court Chief Justice Tahilramani to a smaller High Court in the North-East had created a sensation in legal circles, and a media blitz that embarrassed the apex court a few weeks ago. Disclosures that came thereafter from high levels hinted that the collegium had valid reasons to arrive at such a decision. Tahilramani sought a reconsideration of the transfer order and when the apex court stuck to its decision, she put in her resignation and marched out. Now, another set of supposed revelations have been leaked out.
In an arbitrary manner, the Supreme Court did not think it necessary to explain the transfer.
It is quite understandable that apex court cannot be expected to come up explanations for transfer of judges. However, this shroud of secrecy that has been followed by the higher judiciary in India since Independence has slowly started to erode public confidence on that majestic institution. No one may doubt that the former Chief Justice of Madras High Court Tahilramani could be inefficient, corrupt or mischievous. Given this premise, it is also necessary to give justice to the former Justice.
Also Read
It is a known and accepted fact that superior judges have had many allegations leveled against them since the past few years. Reports of misdemeanors of judges are not uncommon in India. The recent allegation of a woman employee of the Supreme Court had surprised many in this country. The manner in which that allegation was hushed up also raised eyebrows. Apart from this, the public revolt of four judges against the then Chief Justice of India Dipak Mishra had also been a subject of debate for a long time. The government seeking to thwart the collegiums system and the manner in which Supreme Court judges have constantly deflated Parliament’s wishes have not gone unnoticed by the people of this country. We are not intellectually equipped to judge the judges. It is not possible to say who was correct or wrong when the judiciary itself gets embroiled in controversies.
The case of Tahilramani is one such controversy. She, obviously, has been a long serving judicial officer. Her pronouncements in matters that came up to her while she served in the Bombay High Court are not unknown. Her judgements definitely hurt the interests of the powers that be today. Maybe because her presence was uncomfortable at Bombay, she was transferred to another huge High Court – the Madras High Court. If Tahilramani, as is being made out now, was lazy and corrupt, then how come she managed to steadily climb the slippery steps of the judicial ladder to adorn such important seats? The obvious thought that comes to mind is that if a person is guilty of any misdeed, it is that person who would be very aware of what s/he has done. The misdeeds would take up major mindspace, especially in the mind of a senior judicial executive. Now, when one reads allegations against her for which the CJI has asked the CBI to investigate her personal accumulation of wealth and properties, it is not easy to justify either side.
Had the former judge been so very guilty, it can be presumed that she would be scared of her wrongdoings being discovered. Normally, such a person would not dare to challenge the ultimate judicial authority if so much dirt was stuck to her. It can be presumed that a judge guilty of corrupt and inefficient practice could have preferred to meekly accept the so-called downgrading and continue to remain protected. But Tahilramani defied not only the political establishment but also her own judicial bosses. The people of this country are also aware of how organizations like the CBI, ED and the IT Department are being constantly used to harass anyone who stands up for the truth anywhere.
If Tahilramani was so corrupt and inefficient, the Supreme Court collegium could have suspended or got her impeached to ensure that such a bad character individual does not get to sit in the high seat of judicial power.
Unfortunately, the judges of the Supreme Court did not deem it fit to initiate any action against her except her transfer. If thought out on a logical platform, Tahilramani might seem more wronged against than having committed wrongs. The way she stood up and resigned demonstrated her determination, which can only be derived from great inner strength. The action that has been launched against her now may seem as afterthought to control the damage that her resignation has wreaked on the system. These are not issues for us commoners to sit in judgement of. However, as common citizens of a free and democratic country, it is difficult to avoid
assumptions and presumptions.
