Row over Jain continuance

By A. Subramani

CHENNAI, AUG. 23. Judges as well as lawyers in the Madras High Court are divided over the propriety of its Chief Justice, Mr. N.K. Jain, presiding over proceedings even after his transfer to the Karnataka High Court.

So far, two practising advocates have approached the court with separate petitions. While Mr. K. Venkatasubbaraju's quo warranto petition challenged Mr. Justice Jain's authority to continue in office, Mr. M. Senthil Kumar has sought to restrain the CJ from discharging his duties while under orders of transfer.

When the petition was moved before the Second Bench comprising Mr. Justice K. Narayana Kurup and Mr. Justice A. Ramamurthy, the former was surprised when he was told that the Chief Justice had been transferred.

Noting that neither he nor any other judge of the court was officially informed of the development till then, Mr. Justice Kurup also summoned the Registrar-General, Mr. K. Jayaraman, to clear the air.

``Why is there an iron curtain around the Chief Justice's office?,'' he wondered.

The Additional Solicitor-General of India, Mr. V.T. Gopalan, who was asked by the Bench to come out with his opinion, said though the law did not prohibit a judge under transfer from hearing and disposing of cases, judicial ethics and healthy practice demanded that he vacate the office at the earliest. Two weeks are given as joining time so that the person under transfer could make preparations to join duty in the transferee court.

Mr. Justice Kurup also cited Article 217(1)(c) of the Constitution, which says, ``the office of a judge shall be vacated on his being appointed by the President to be the judge of the Supreme Court or on his being transferred by the President to any other High Court''.

Talking about his own transfer from the Kerala High Court, Mr. Justice Kurup said, ``I did not stick like a leech till the last moment. I packed up lock, stock and barrel immediately''.

Later in the day, the Registrar-General told the Bench that the transfer order was served on the Chief Justice on Tuesday.

Then the Bench said, ``we hope and expect the honourable Chief Justice to follow the norms and rules of propriety and discipline'', and posted the matter for the afternoon.

During the post-lunch sitting, the Bench, refusing to give any direction on the quo warranto petition, asked the Registry to ``number it and post it before the appropriate Bench, after taking orders from the Chief Justice tomorrow itself for maintainability''.

In his petition, Mr. Venkatasubbaraju said once Mr. Justice Jain received the transfer orders, he should not discharge the administrative or judicial function of the court even though he continued to be a judge, ``in view of the principles of propriety, decency and decorum of the office he holds''.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Southern States
Previous : Cameras for protection
Next     : Commotion over Ponmudi remark