Ex-CJI Balakrishnan: Govt. should have been “little careful” while issuing “midnight” transfer of Delhi HC Justice S Muralidhar

Must Read

The Debate Between IPR and Competition Law Explained

There are various market processes or structures that govern market scenario. For simplicity, this paper focuses on two mechanisms:...

The Competition Law Regime and Re-Tooling Patent Pools In India

The adversity to acquire licenses of various patented technologies can thwart the commercialization as well as the development of...

Solving Healthcare Issues Using Blockchain Technology

In troubled times that follow a pandemic, almost all nations are forced to take stock of the gaps present...

How Artificial Intelligence is Transforming the Legal Profession

In recent times, we have seen the introduction of artificial intelligence on a small yet phenomenally successful scale in...

Approaching the von Neumann Bottleneck: Neuromorphic Computing & beyond

“There are one trillion synapses in a cubic centimeter of the brain. If there is such a thing as...

Is India Truly Following the Footsteps of Mahatma Gandhi?

On October 2, 2020, it was the 151st birth anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi. India couldn’t celebrate it due to...

Follow us

The government should have been a “little careful” while issuing the “midnight” order transferring Delhi High Court Judge S Muralidhar to the Punjab and Haryana High Court, former Chief Justice of India Justice K G Balakrishnan has said, amid a row over the timing of the transfer.

The transfer order was issued by the Union Law and Justice Ministry on February 26, the day a bench headed by Justice Muralidhar expressed “agony” over Delhi Police’s failure to register FIRs against alleged hate speeches by three BJP leaders. The government has said the transfer had nothing to do with any case as a recommendation to this effect was already made by the Supreme Court Collegium and the judge had also given his consent.

Talking to PTI over phone on Friday, Justice Balakrishnan said it was a mere coincidence that the final transfer notification was issued on the day when he passed the order on the hate speeches because his transferred had been already contemplated by the Supreme Court collegium a week ago.

“I don’t know on what date the transfer issue came up before the collegium,” he added.

Justice Muralidhar’s transfer has nothing to do with the observations he made while hearing the Delhi violence case, the former CJI said.

“When the situation in the country is so volatile and media and others are active the government should have been little careful while issuing such midnight transfer order as there are chances of people thinking otherwise. The people could interpret differently,” Justice Balakrishnan said.

Moreover, the Delhi violence case was not taken up by Justice Muralidhar on his own. As the Delhi HC Chief Justice D N Patel was on leave that day and he being the third senior judge, Justice Muralidhar headed that particular bench which heard the case, he said.

Justice Balakrishnan also said he did not think that Justice Muralidhar was asked to join on the next day itself in the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Normally when such a transfer order is issued a joining time of not less than seven days is given to enable the transferred judge to prepare himself for the new posting, Justice Balakrishnan added.

An NGO — The Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) — Thursday condemned the transfer of Justice Muralidhar, claiming the move was to punish an “honest and courageous” judicial officer.

CJAR said it knows that Justice Muralidhar’s transfer was recommended by the SC Collegium on February 12 but the rushed manner in which the notification has been issued by the government cannot be ignored.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. This story has been published via syndicate feed and has not been altered except for the title. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board & Anr., via video-conferencing. Deeming the...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish Bisht & Anr. v. State...

Madras High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against National Stock Exchange For Lack Of Merit

In the case of A. Kumar v. Financial Intelligence Unit & Ors., A. Kumar filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution...

The Federal Appeals Court Holds Trump’s Diversion of Military Funds To Build the Wall To Be Unlawful

The Federal Appeals Court held that US President Donald Trump’s diversion of military funds to build the wall is unlawful. A grey area in the...

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Filed Challenging the Judgment of Madras High Court in Ganesan v. State Represented by Its Inspector of Police

An appeal was filed before the Supreme court, challenging the judgment & order of Madras High Court. The Supreme Court upheld the HC judgment...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -