Butchers of Sopore and Birmingham

Nine years of calm before icy storm

Kashmir turns crimson with blood of Pandits

AN UN-ISLAMIC KIDNAPPING AND CHAOS IN THE VALLEY

The illusion of azaadi and Kashmir’s historic deception

How Pak's terror policy evolved in Kashmir

Birth of social media jihadists, death of Article-370

Operation Sindoor: When Indian missiles rained on Pak terror parade

<div class='ite_mg_banner ads__container'><div class='it_mg_bnrBox'><div class='ite_bnr_cont'><div class='ite_cont_dtl'> <h4>Subscribe to India Today Print + Digital. Your First Month Is On Us. <span class='bold_text'> ₹299/month</span> thereafter. Cancel anytime.</h4><a href='https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.dev?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsubscriptions.intoday.in%2Findiatoday%3Futm_source%3Dtop-web-banner ' class='ite_subscribe_btn origin_conscent_url' target='_blank'>SUBSCRIBE</a></div></div></div></div>

US Election coverage

India

World

NewsMo

Fact Check

Programmes

Match Schedule

Teams

Player Stats

Match Report

LIVE SCORES

<div class="itg-mosimage"><amp-img src="https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.dev?url=https%3A%2F%2Fakm-img-a-in.tosshub.com%2Fsites%2Fmedia2%2Findiatoday%2Fimages%2Fstories%2F1981February%2Fdivided-1_112713120643.jpg" alt="" height="425" width="650" class="" layout="responsive"></amp-img><p>The Presidential fiat transferring the two Chief Justices, Krishna Ballabh Narayan Singh, 58, of Patna High Court and Muhammad Kassim Muhammad Ismail, 59, of Madras High Court from their home states, and appointing three judges to the Supreme Court has snowballed into a major controversy - the second since 1973 when Mrs Gandhi's Government appointed Justice A.N. Ray as Supreme Court's chief justice superseding three other senior judges.<br><br>Justice Ismail's resignation and Justice Singh's reported annoyance have plunged the 380-odd High Court judges serving in the nation's 18 high courts into a pall of gloom. And, inevitably, it has also provided the Opposition with a stick to beat Mrs Gandhi's Government.<br><br>This is the second time that the Congress Government has resorted to the transfer of judges. During the Emergency 16 judges were transferred to and from various High Courts. But for the first time the axe has fallen on the chief justices.<br><br>With one possible exception, no chief justice was ever transferred without his prior consent in the last 30 years. "These transfers, though small in number," feels a judge of a High Court, "have revived threats to the independence of the judiciary. The stage has been set for the large-scale transfer of judges from one state to another." Since the Government is the largest litigant in the country. it perforce pays close attention to the composition of the judiciary.<br><br>Avers Soli Sorabjee, former solicitor general: "I am opposed to the transfers. It is pernicious and demoralises the judiciary. Tomorrow you may have chief justices who toe the Government line. Some judges will be so influenced that they wouldn't want to give judgements that are inconvenient to the Government."<br><b><br>Ominous Policy</b>: The warning against eroding the judiciary's independence and demoralising the judges assumes greater significance in view of the large number of vacancies in the Supreme Court and the High Courts.<br><br>Besides the 80 vacancies which are yet to be filled, 16 more will fall vacant by the end of this year in the High Courts. And by 1985 when Mrs Gandhi's present term of office expires the courts taken together will have 200 new judges-which means over half of the total sanctioned strength of all the High Courts.<br><br>Critics of the ruling party point out that the policy of transfers and the large-scale vacancies will enable the Congress(I) to pack the judiciary with sympathetic people.<br><br>"As long as the power to appoint and transfer the Supreme Court and High Court judges rests with the Government," says P.H. Parekh, 54, a leading Supreme Court advocate, "uncertainty will continue to hound our judges."<br><br>Those opposed to the mass transfers maintain that the Congress (I) Government seems determined to fill the High Courts with pro-Congress (I) elements and the occasional threat of transfer is meant to extract favourable judgements.<br><br>Says Arun Jaitley, a young lawyer of Delhi: "It is a calculated attempt to create terror amongst the judges. Since the Government is determined to curb civil liberties to cover its failure, it wants a pliant judiciary. Soon you will find the courts packed with Congress (I) elements."<br><br>Although the Government stoutly defends the transfers on a constitutional basis, it seems that it means to transfer the majority of the 110 High Court judges appointed during the 3 3-month tenure of the Janata-Lok Dal governments.<br><br>Half of these are yet to be confirmed and Congress (I) Governments in the states are not happy with many of them. They have been pressurising the Central Government to implement its much vaunted transfer policy to weed out those judges who were actively associated with the Janata and the Rashtriya Swyamsevak Sangh (RSS).<br><br><b>Political Bias</b>: According to some leading advocates, every fourth appointment in the Supreme Court has, in the past, been made on the basis of the political suitability of the person.<br><br>Out of 390 High Court judges more than 80 are known for their involvement in politics while they were practising advocates. During Jawaharlal Nehru's 17-year-rule, the number of judges appointed for their political connections was low, but rose sharply during Mrs Gandhi's first stint as prime minister from 1966-77 and the trend seems to have started again.<br><br>The Congress (I) Government had been peddling the idea of mass transfer of High Court judges ever since Mrs Gandhi returned to power in January last year.<br><br>In the monsoon session of Parliament Law Minister Shiv Shankar emphatically declared that the proposal for appointing an outsider as chief justice and one-third of the Bench from outside the state, "by and large merits favourable consideration in the interests of sound judicial administration and also the independence of the judiciary."<br><br>But it took the Government 371 days to implement his doctrine and start transferring judges. And he was obliged to seek the prior approval of Chief Justice Y. V. Chandrachud -who has become the centre of controversy in this episode.<br><br>For over a year there was deadlock between the chief justice and the Government over the transfer policy and the Government could not fill the five Supreme Court and the over 80 High Court vacanies for over nine months.<br><br><b>Vacancies</b>: In addition, seven High Courts remained without permanent chief justices for over six months. Chandrachud was opposed to a wholesale movement and wanted individual cases considered on merit.<br><br>Vice-President Hidayatullah, a former chief justice of India, had also expressed himself publicly against the proposed transfer of chief justices and judges of the High Courts. Since Chandrachud did not budge from his original stand, the Government surrendered and not only confirmed the five acting chief justices of Delhi, Rajasthan, Bombay, Orissa and Andhra Pradesh during the last three months, but also filled the five vacancies in the Supreme Court. The Gauhati and the Jammu and Kashmir High Courts are, however, still underacting chief justices.<br><br>Besides the two vacancies of chief justices of Patna and Calcutta High Courts, the chief justices of Andhra, Gujarat, Karnataka and Bombay are due to retire within the next 18 months and if the Government sticks to its policy of shifting all those chief justices who belong to the states they are serving then 12 of the 18 High Courts could be affected.<br><br>Among those likely to be transferred under this policy are: Justice Satish Chandra of Allahabad, Justice Bipin Chandra Jiwan Lai Dewan of Gujarat, Justice Venkat Shrinivas Deshpande of Bombay, Justice Prakash Narain of Delhi, Justice Deshmundre Mallappa Chandrashekher of Karnataka and Justice Surjeet Singh Sandhawalia of Punjab and Haryana High Court.<br><br>The leaders of the Bar have been slow to react to the Government action. But opposition leaders have already started their tirade. Says A. Balasubramanyam, secretary of the Tamil Nadu unit of the Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M): "The assumption of power by the executive to transfer judges and the actual exercise of such powers carry with them the potential to intimidate the judiciary."<br><br><b>Dangerous Policy</b>: According to the Government's critics the policy of inducting at least one-third of High Court judges from outside the state is fraught with dangerous implications. Besides the language problem, it will lead to excessive politicisation of the entire judiciary.<br><br>And judges will hob-nob with the politicians to save their posts. Says Kalraj Mishra. a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) member of the Rajya Sabha: "For the Congress (I), independent judges are the stumbling blocks on the way to their unconstitutional design.<br><br>By hanging the sword of transfer over the judges' heads, the Congress (I) wants to run the states like dictatorships." Opposition leaders also allege that the Government wants to ensure that the courts do not release the people who are likely to be arrested under the newly promulgated National Security Act.<br><br>But the Government as well as Congress (I) leaders maintain that there is nothing improper in these transfers which have been done under Article 222 of the Indian Constitution.<br><br>Article 222 says that the President may, after consultation with the chief justice of India, transfer a judge from the High Court to any other High Court. However the Article does not indicate the scale and magnitude of the transfers or fix the quantum to be filled from outside a state.<br><br>The opposition leaders also accuse the Government of violating the recommendations of the Law Commission. This proposed that there should be a convention according to which one-third of the judges in each High Court should be from another state.<br><br>This would normally be done through initial appointments and not by transfer. It also prescribed that to prevent the abuse of power of transfer, if necessary, no judge should be transferred without his consent from one High Court to another unless a panel consisting of the chief justice and his four seniormost colleagues find sufficient cause for such a transfer.<br><br><b>Stout Defence</b>: Whether this process was adhered to in the recent transfers is debatable. But Congress (I) statwarts stoutly defend the move. Says Lalit Bhasin, a pro-Congress(I) Supreme Court lawyer: "I support these transfers. People of one particular state do not have a permanent right to hold the top judicial appointments in that particular slate. It will lead to judicial integration of the country."<br><br>Congress(I) leaders also maintain that the system of inducting one-third judges from outside the state would not only foster national integration but would also improve the functioning of the High Courts.<br><br>While the law minister was not available for comment, an official of the Law Ministry said. "The advantages gained by having people from other states as judges would be much greater compared with the possible disadvantages."<br><br>Since both Chief Justice Chandrachud and Law Minister Shankar have maintained a cryptic silence, all sorts of motives are being ascribed to the Government. Says an advocate of the Kerala High Court: "The whole exercise is part of the Government's intention to deny the chief justice's post to Poti who is the seniormost judge in the court."<br><br>Padmanabhan Subramanian Poti, 57, was appointed to the Kerala High Court in March 1969 and he was supposed to be elevated after the appointment of Chief Justice V. Balakrishna Eradi as Supreme Court judge.<br><br>For Justice Ismail it is the second transfer in his 13-year judicial career. He was first appointed as additional judge of the Delhi High Court in 1967 and was transferred to his home state Tamil Nadu in November 1967. His name was reportedly suggested for rilling one of the vacancies in the Supreme Court during the Lok Dal-Congress(U) regime, but this was turned down by President Sanjiva Reddy.<br><br>He is known for his opposition to any form of authoritarianism, and during the Janata rule did a thorough and painstaking inquiry report, like the Shah Commission's at the national level, of Emergency excesses in Tamil Nadu.<br><br><b>Historic Ruling</b>: By transferring Justice Ismail to Cochin, the Centre has killed two birds with one stone. Justice Subramanian Poti is persona non grata with former chief minister and leader of the Congress(I) legislature party, K. Karunakaran.<br><br>The only way to prevent Poti from becoming chief justice of Kerala was to bring in an outsider, or resort to more supersessions. Poti was appointed judge of the Kerala High Court during the Marxist-led United Front Government of 1967-69. Before his appointment he was a known supporter of the CP1-M.<br><br>The extraordinary powers Karunakaran gave to the police during the Emergency, when he was home minister of Kerala, led to the torture and murder of Rajan, a young engineering college student, at the hands of the police.<br><br>On the habeas corpus petition filed by Rajan's father, Professor T. V. Eachara Warrier, a division bench of the Kerala High Court, comprising Poti and Khalid. gave the historic ruling that "when a person was shown to have been taken into custody, the circumstances of the case might lead the court to assume that he was still in custody. If he was not, it was for the person who had taken the man into custody or the person who subsequently got his custody to explain how the custody came to an end"-which forced Karunakaran to resign his chief ministership hardly a month after taking the oath.<br><br><b><div class="itg-mosimage"><amp-img src="https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.dev?url=https%3A%2F%2Fakm-img-a-in.tosshub.com%2Fsites%2Fmedia2%2Findiatoday%2Fimages%2Fstories%2F1981February%2Fudiciary__112713121111.jpg" alt="" height="425" width="650" class="" layout="responsive"></amp-img>Shankar (left) and Chandrachud: Dilemma</div>Bad Precedent</b>: Though it is now obvious that the transfers have been done in consultation with Chief Justice Chandrachud. Mystery surrounds the procedure of selecting the chief justice of Bihar and Madras for transfer.<br><br>The question being posed is: why have they been transferred without the approval of the chief ministers thus setting a dangerous precedent? According to some insiders these transfers were ordered after the recent Bar Council meeting held in Bangalore which expressed shock over the deteriorating situation in 'a few courts'.<br><br>But legal circles do not accept this explanation because the local Bar has been fighting for the transfer of Chief Justice Satish Chandra of Allahabad High Court for the last two years but the Government has not acceded to the request.<br><br>Also, both judges have been given their marching orders without their consent. While Kerala Chief Minister K. Nayanar has opposed the imposition of Justice Ismail on .his state on principle, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. G. Ramachandran has used the language issue to oppose the move the Centre to send a Hindi-speaking judge to head the Madras High Court.<br><br>Says Ramachandran: "Posting of a judge who lacks knowledge of the state's official language is a retrogressive step. Any such action by the Centre is sure to evoke resentment not only among the judiciary but in the minds of the general public in every state."<br><br>That the latest episode has stirred public emotions is debatable, but it has definitely left the judges hanging in the balance. If that fear persists longer then the towering edifice of an independent judiciary will soon start showing signs of cracking.<br></p><div id="tab-link-wrapper-plugin"><div class="authors__container"><div class="authors__by"><div class="authlable">Published By: </div><div class="authdetaisl">AtMigration </div></div><div class="published__on"><div class="authlable">Published On: </div><div class="authdetaisl">Nov 27, 2013</div></div></div><div class="sendros">--- ENDS ---</div></div></div>

special-report

Special Report

<div class="itg-mosimage"><div class="itgimage"><img  title=""  class="" alt="" src="https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.dev?url=https%3A%2F%2Fakm-img-a-in.tosshub.com%2Fsites%2Fmedia2%2Findiatoday%2Fimages%2Fstories%2F1981February%2Fdivided-1_112713120643.jpg" loading="lazy" /></div><p>The Presidential fiat transferring the two Chief Justices, Krishna Ballabh Narayan Singh, 58, of Patna High Court and Muhammad Kassim Muhammad Ismail, 59, of Madras High Court from their home states, and appointing three judges to the Supreme Court has snowballed into a major controversy - the second since 1973 when Mrs Gandhi's Government appointed Justice A.N. Ray as Supreme Court's chief justice superseding three other senior judges.<br><br>Justice Ismail's resignation and Justice Singh's reported annoyance have plunged the 380-odd High Court judges serving in the nation's 18 high courts into a pall of gloom. And, inevitably, it has also provided the Opposition with a stick to beat Mrs Gandhi's Government.<br><br>This is the second time that the Congress Government has resorted to the transfer of judges. During the Emergency 16 judges were transferred to and from various High Courts. But for the first time the axe has fallen on the chief justices.<br><br>With one possible exception, no chief justice was ever transferred without his prior consent in the last 30 years. "These transfers, though small in number," feels a judge of a High Court, "have revived threats to the independence of the judiciary. The stage has been set for the large-scale transfer of judges from one state to another." Since the Government is the largest litigant in the country. it perforce pays close attention to the composition of the judiciary.<br><br>Avers Soli Sorabjee, former solicitor general: "I am opposed to the transfers. It is pernicious and demoralises the judiciary. Tomorrow you may have chief justices who toe the Government line. Some judges will be so influenced that they wouldn't want to give judgements that are inconvenient to the Government."<br><b><br>Ominous Policy</b>: The warning against eroding the judiciary's independence and demoralising the judges assumes greater significance in view of the large number of vacancies in the Supreme Court and the High Courts.<br><br>Besides the 80 vacancies which are yet to be filled, 16 more will fall vacant by the end of this year in the High Courts. And by 1985 when Mrs Gandhi's present term of office expires the courts taken together will have 200 new judges-which means over half of the total sanctioned strength of all the High Courts.<br><br>Critics of the ruling party point out that the policy of transfers and the large-scale vacancies will enable the Congress(I) to pack the judiciary with sympathetic people.<br><br>"As long as the power to appoint and transfer the Supreme Court and High Court judges rests with the Government," says P.H. Parekh, 54, a leading Supreme Court advocate, "uncertainty will continue to hound our judges."<br><br>Those opposed to the mass transfers maintain that the Congress (I) Government seems determined to fill the High Courts with pro-Congress (I) elements and the occasional threat of transfer is meant to extract favourable judgements.<br><br>Says Arun Jaitley, a young lawyer of Delhi: "It is a calculated attempt to create terror amongst the judges. Since the Government is determined to curb civil liberties to cover its failure, it wants a pliant judiciary. Soon you will find the courts packed with Congress (I) elements."<br><br>Although the Government stoutly defends the transfers on a constitutional basis, it seems that it means to transfer the majority of the 110 High Court judges appointed during the 3 3-month tenure of the Janata-Lok Dal governments.<br><br>Half of these are yet to be confirmed and Congress (I) Governments in the states are not happy with many of them. They have been pressurising the Central Government to implement its much vaunted transfer policy to weed out those judges who were actively associated with the Janata and the Rashtriya Swyamsevak Sangh (RSS).<br><br><b>Political Bias</b>: According to some leading advocates, every fourth appointment in the Supreme Court has, in the past, been made on the basis of the political suitability of the person.<br><br>Out of 390 High Court judges more than 80 are known for their involvement in politics while they were practising advocates. During Jawaharlal Nehru's 17-year-rule, the number of judges appointed for their political connections was low, but rose sharply during Mrs Gandhi's first stint as prime minister from 1966-77 and the trend seems to have started again.<br><br>The Congress (I) Government had been peddling the idea of mass transfer of High Court judges ever since Mrs Gandhi returned to power in January last year.<br><br>In the monsoon session of Parliament Law Minister Shiv Shankar emphatically declared that the proposal for appointing an outsider as chief justice and one-third of the Bench from outside the state, "by and large merits favourable consideration in the interests of sound judicial administration and also the independence of the judiciary."<br><br>But it took the Government 371 days to implement his doctrine and start transferring judges. And he was obliged to seek the prior approval of Chief Justice Y. V. Chandrachud -who has become the centre of controversy in this episode.<br><br>For over a year there was deadlock between the chief justice and the Government over the transfer policy and the Government could not fill the five Supreme Court and the over 80 High Court vacanies for over nine months.<br><br><b>Vacancies</b>: In addition, seven High Courts remained without permanent chief justices for over six months. Chandrachud was opposed to a wholesale movement and wanted individual cases considered on merit.<br><br>Vice-President Hidayatullah, a former chief justice of India, had also expressed himself publicly against the proposed transfer of chief justices and judges of the High Courts. Since Chandrachud did not budge from his original stand, the Government surrendered and not only confirmed the five acting chief justices of Delhi, Rajasthan, Bombay, Orissa and Andhra Pradesh during the last three months, but also filled the five vacancies in the Supreme Court. The Gauhati and the Jammu and Kashmir High Courts are, however, still underacting chief justices.<br><br>Besides the two vacancies of chief justices of Patna and Calcutta High Courts, the chief justices of Andhra, Gujarat, Karnataka and Bombay are due to retire within the next 18 months and if the Government sticks to its policy of shifting all those chief justices who belong to the states they are serving then 12 of the 18 High Courts could be affected.<br><br>Among those likely to be transferred under this policy are: Justice Satish Chandra of Allahabad, Justice Bipin Chandra Jiwan Lai Dewan of Gujarat, Justice Venkat Shrinivas Deshpande of Bombay, Justice Prakash Narain of Delhi, Justice Deshmundre Mallappa Chandrashekher of Karnataka and Justice Surjeet Singh Sandhawalia of Punjab and Haryana High Court.<br><br>The leaders of the Bar have been slow to react to the Government action. But opposition leaders have already started their tirade. Says A. Balasubramanyam, secretary of the Tamil Nadu unit of the Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M): "The assumption of power by the executive to transfer judges and the actual exercise of such powers carry with them the potential to intimidate the judiciary."<br><br><b>Dangerous Policy</b>: According to the Government's critics the policy of inducting at least one-third of High Court judges from outside the state is fraught with dangerous implications. Besides the language problem, it will lead to excessive politicisation of the entire judiciary.<br><br>And judges will hob-nob with the politicians to save their posts. Says Kalraj Mishra. a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) member of the Rajya Sabha: "For the Congress (I), independent judges are the stumbling blocks on the way to their unconstitutional design.<br><br>By hanging the sword of transfer over the judges' heads, the Congress (I) wants to run the states like dictatorships." Opposition leaders also allege that the Government wants to ensure that the courts do not release the people who are likely to be arrested under the newly promulgated National Security Act.<br><br>But the Government as well as Congress (I) leaders maintain that there is nothing improper in these transfers which have been done under Article 222 of the Indian Constitution.<br><br>Article 222 says that the President may, after consultation with the chief justice of India, transfer a judge from the High Court to any other High Court. However the Article does not indicate the scale and magnitude of the transfers or fix the quantum to be filled from outside a state.<br><br>The opposition leaders also accuse the Government of violating the recommendations of the Law Commission. This proposed that there should be a convention according to which one-third of the judges in each High Court should be from another state.<br><br>This would normally be done through initial appointments and not by transfer. It also prescribed that to prevent the abuse of power of transfer, if necessary, no judge should be transferred without his consent from one High Court to another unless a panel consisting of the chief justice and his four seniormost colleagues find sufficient cause for such a transfer.<br><br><b>Stout Defence</b>: Whether this process was adhered to in the recent transfers is debatable. But Congress (I) statwarts stoutly defend the move. Says Lalit Bhasin, a pro-Congress(I) Supreme Court lawyer: "I support these transfers. People of one particular state do not have a permanent right to hold the top judicial appointments in that particular slate. It will lead to judicial integration of the country."<br><br>Congress(I) leaders also maintain that the system of inducting one-third judges from outside the state would not only foster national integration but would also improve the functioning of the High Courts.<br><br>While the law minister was not available for comment, an official of the Law Ministry said. "The advantages gained by having people from other states as judges would be much greater compared with the possible disadvantages."<br><br>Since both Chief Justice Chandrachud and Law Minister Shankar have maintained a cryptic silence, all sorts of motives are being ascribed to the Government. Says an advocate of the Kerala High Court: "The whole exercise is part of the Government's intention to deny the chief justice's post to Poti who is the seniormost judge in the court."<br><br>Padmanabhan Subramanian Poti, 57, was appointed to the Kerala High Court in March 1969 and he was supposed to be elevated after the appointment of Chief Justice V. Balakrishna Eradi as Supreme Court judge.<br><br>For Justice Ismail it is the second transfer in his 13-year judicial career. He was first appointed as additional judge of the Delhi High Court in 1967 and was transferred to his home state Tamil Nadu in November 1967. His name was reportedly suggested for rilling one of the vacancies in the Supreme Court during the Lok Dal-Congress(U) regime, but this was turned down by President Sanjiva Reddy.<br><br>He is known for his opposition to any form of authoritarianism, and during the Janata rule did a thorough and painstaking inquiry report, like the Shah Commission's at the national level, of Emergency excesses in Tamil Nadu.<br><br><b>Historic Ruling</b>: By transferring Justice Ismail to Cochin, the Centre has killed two birds with one stone. Justice Subramanian Poti is persona non grata with former chief minister and leader of the Congress(I) legislature party, K. Karunakaran.<br><br>The only way to prevent Poti from becoming chief justice of Kerala was to bring in an outsider, or resort to more supersessions. Poti was appointed judge of the Kerala High Court during the Marxist-led United Front Government of 1967-69. Before his appointment he was a known supporter of the CP1-M.<br><br>The extraordinary powers Karunakaran gave to the police during the Emergency, when he was home minister of Kerala, led to the torture and murder of Rajan, a young engineering college student, at the hands of the police.<br><br>On the habeas corpus petition filed by Rajan's father, Professor T. V. Eachara Warrier, a division bench of the Kerala High Court, comprising Poti and Khalid. gave the historic ruling that "when a person was shown to have been taken into custody, the circumstances of the case might lead the court to assume that he was still in custody. If he was not, it was for the person who had taken the man into custody or the person who subsequently got his custody to explain how the custody came to an end"-which forced Karunakaran to resign his chief ministership hardly a month after taking the oath.<br><br><b><div class="itg-mosimage"><div class="itgimage"><img  title=""  class="" alt="" src="https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.dev?url=https%3A%2F%2Fakm-img-a-in.tosshub.com%2Fsites%2Fmedia2%2Findiatoday%2Fimages%2Fstories%2F1981February%2Fudiciary__112713121111.jpg" loading="lazy" /></div>Shankar (left) and Chandrachud: Dilemma</div>Bad Precedent</b>: Though it is now obvious that the transfers have been done in consultation with Chief Justice Chandrachud. Mystery surrounds the procedure of selecting the chief justice of Bihar and Madras for transfer.<br><br>The question being posed is: why have they been transferred without the approval of the chief ministers thus setting a dangerous precedent? According to some insiders these transfers were ordered after the recent Bar Council meeting held in Bangalore which expressed shock over the deteriorating situation in 'a few courts'.<br><br>But legal circles do not accept this explanation because the local Bar has been fighting for the transfer of Chief Justice Satish Chandra of Allahabad High Court for the last two years but the Government has not acceded to the request.<br><br>Also, both judges have been given their marching orders without their consent. While Kerala Chief Minister K. Nayanar has opposed the imposition of Justice Ismail on .his state on principle, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. G. Ramachandran has used the language issue to oppose the move the Centre to send a Hindi-speaking judge to head the Madras High Court.<br><br>Says Ramachandran: "Posting of a judge who lacks knowledge of the state's official language is a retrogressive step. Any such action by the Centre is sure to evoke resentment not only among the judiciary but in the minds of the general public in every state."<br><br>That the latest episode has stirred public emotions is debatable, but it has definitely left the judges hanging in the balance. If that fear persists longer then the towering edifice of an independent judiciary will soon start showing signs of cracking.<br></p><div id="tab-link-wrapper-plugin"><div class="authors__container"><div class="authors__by"><div class="authlable">Published By: </div><div class="authdetaisl">AtMigration </div></div><div class="published__on"><div class="authlable">Published On: </div><div class="authdetaisl">Nov 27, 2013</div></div></div><div class="sendros">--- ENDS ---</div></div></div>

Justice Ismail's resignation and Justice Singh's reported annoyance have plunged the 380-odd High Court judges serving in the nation's 18 high courts into a pall of gloom. And, inevitably, it has also provided the Opposition with a stick to beat Mrs Gandhi's Government.

India Today

This is the second time that the Congress Government has resorted to the transfer of judges. During the Emergency 16 judges were transferred to and from various High Courts. But for the first time the axe has fallen on the chief justices. 

Judiciary: Confrontation in the making - India Today

Transfer of judges snowballs into a major controversy

Judiciary: Confrontation in the making

A supply shortfall of authentic Mysore silk sarees has led to long queues outside Karnataka Silk Industries Corporation showrooms, with women arriving before dawn to buy limited-availability sarees.

mysuru silk

Women queue from 4am to buy Mysore silk sarees as supply falls short

A day after Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney declared at the World Economic Forum that the US-led global order was fading, Donald Trump needled him on the same stage, saying the US’s northern neighbour was “not grateful” despite receiving several “freebies” from Washington, DC.

mark carney, Donald Trump

Canada lives because of US: Trump to Mark Carney after fiery speech

Aajtak accesses the complete chronology of the movements of Noida techie Yuvraj Mehta on the day his car plunged into the water-filled pit in Greater Noida. Here is a minute-by-minute timeline to show what happened after he left office. Read here....

Noida techie Yuvraj Mehta

CCTV trail shows last moments of Noida techie before drowning in water-filled pit

When Sunita Williams walked into Dogra Hall at IIT Delhi, the room filled with excitement. For the students gathered there, the astronaut’s stories were not just about space missions, but about discipline, teamwork, and the long road that turns curiosity into achievement.

At IIT Delhi, Sunita Williams shares lessons from life in Orbit

A woman breached security at the Indian team hotel in Indore on Sunday in an attempt to meet Rohit Sharma following India’s ODI series against New Zealand. She later revealed that her actions were driven by a desperate effort to draw the Indian cricketer’s attention and seek help for her ailing daughter.

Rohit Sharma

Didn’t stop Rohit Sharma for selfie: Woman explains shocking security breach in Indore

Play Time!

Donald Trump

Davos 2026

PM Modi

India vs New Zealand Live

T20 World Cup

Deepinder Goyal

Border 2

Dhurandhar

Virat Kohli

JEE Main

Maneka Gandhi

Jana Nayagan

Jaipur Literature Festival

WPL 2026

AR Rahman

Budget

United States President Donald Trump, who addressed the World Economic Forum in Davos, said that he loves Europe, but it's not heading in the right direction.

I love Europe, but it's not heading in right direction: Trump at Davos

In this Special Report, we focus on the retirement of veteran NASA astronaut Sunita Williams after an illustrious 27-year career. Speaking in New Delhi, Williams described her visit to India as a 'homecoming', reflecting on her deep personal ties to the country where her father was born. During an interactive session, she shared profound life lessons from her time aboard the International Space Station, noting, 'Every person I know is there. Every animal, every plant, everything we know is there, and we're all on this one planet.' Williams, who completed three missions and set multiple human spaceflight records, emphasized how viewing Earth from orbit changes one's perception of global differences. The retired astronaut also met with the family of late fellow astronaut Kalpana Chawla during her stay in the national capital. The programme highlights her historic contributions to space exploration and her reflections on humanity's shared home.

Sunita Williams: Being In India Is Homecoming

Sunita Williams retires from Nasa after 27 years, calls India visit a 'homecoming'

This report highlights a major embarrassment for Pakistan's Defence Minister, Khawaja Asif, who inaugurated an unauthorised Pizza Hut outlet in his constituency of Sialkot.

Khwaja Asif Inaugurates Fake Pizza Hut

Khawaja Asif faces ridicule after inaugurating fake Pizza Hut outlet in Sialkot

In this India Today special report, anchor Aishwarya and correspondent Pranay Upadhyay discuss a security scare involving Donald Trump’s aircraft. Air Force One was forced to return to Joint Base Andrews shortly after take-off due to a technical snag in the electrical unit. Pranay Upadhyay noted, 'The security team of President Donald Trump did not want to take any chance with the President's aircraft,' leading to the decision to switch planes. Trump, who was en route to Davos, Switzerland, had to board a backup aircraft to continue his journey. The report highlights that the current VC-25A Boeing 747-200B has been in service since 1990 and is approximately 35 years old. While the aircraft is heavily modified and maintained, a new replacement is not expected until 2027. The return was described as a precautionary measure following the discovery of the minor electrical fault by the crew.

Donald Trumps Air Force One Scare: Technical Snag Forces Return

Donald Trump's Air Force One forced to return to base after technical snag

In an exclusive interview with India Today’s Bhavna Agarwal, actor Sophie Turner was joined by her co-star Archie Madekwe, who spoke about their love for India, RRR and more. 

Sophie Turner India Today Exclusive on India, RRR, Steal. Credit: Prime Video

Download App

Subscribe to India Today Print + Digital. Your First Month Is On Us. ₹299/month thereafter. Cancel anytime.

Transfer of judges snowballs into a major controversy

Justice Ismail's resignation and Justice Singh's reported annoyance have plunged the 380-odd High Court judges serving in the nation's 18 high courts into a pall of gloom. And, inevitably, it has also provided the Opposition with a stick to beat Mrs Gandhi's Government.

PUBLICATIONS

TELEVISION

EVENTS

RADIO

GAMING

USEFUL LINKS

PRINTING

WELFARE

DISTRIBUTION

SYNDICATIONS

WEBSITES

EDUCATION