Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Vijaya Tahilramani | |
---|---|
Chief Justice of Madras High Court | |
In office 4 August 2018 –6 September 2019 | |
Nominated by | Dipak Misra |
Appointed by | Ram Nath Kovind |
Preceded by | Indira Banerjee |
Succeeded by | Vineet Kothari (acting) |
Acting Chief Justice of Bombay High Court | |
In office 5 December 2017 –3 August 2018 | |
Nominated by | Dipak Misra |
Appointed by | Ram Nath Kovind |
Personal details | |
Born | Bombay,Bombay State,India | 3 October 1958
Vijaya Kamlesh Tahilramani (born 3 October 1958) is a former Indian judge and prosecutor,who last served as the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court. Previously,as a judge of the Bombay High Court,she notably upheld the conviction of several persons for the rape of a pregnant Muslim woman during the 2002 Gujarat riots,chastising investigative authorities for their inaction in the matter,and also refused parole for those convicted in the 1993 Bombay bombings. She retired in 2019,after refusing to accept a controversial transfer from the Madras High Court to the Meghalaya High Court.
Tahilramani joined the Bar in 1982,enrolling with the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa. [1] She practiced law in the Mumbai City Civil,Sessions,and High Court,working on criminal and civil matters,and also taught criminal law at K.C. Law College in Mumbai between 1987 and 1993. [1] In 1990,she was appointed a government pleader and public prosecutor,initially serving in sessions courts and later in the Bombay High Court. [1]
On 26 June 2001,Tahilramani was appointed a judge of the Bombay High Court,and in 2015,she briefly served as the acting Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court after Justice Mohit Shah retired. [2] On 5 December 2017,she became acting Chief Justice for the Bombay High Court once again,succeeding Justice Manjula Chellur. [3] [4] During her tenure at the Bombay High Court,Tahilramani notably rejected appeals and affirmed the conviction of persons accused in the 2002 Bilkis Bano case,in which a 19 year old pregnant Muslim woman was gang-raped during the 2002 Gujarat riots. [5] While granting compensation to the victim,Tahilramani's judgment also noted significant lapses by the police and investigative authorities in recording and investigating the crime. [5] In 2018,Tahilramani also declined a request from Devendra Fadnavis,a member of the Bharatiya Janata Party and then the Chief Minister of Maharashtra,to head an inquiry into the 2018 Bhima Koregaon incident,on the grounds that as a sitting judge of the High Court,it would be inappropriate for her to accept the government appointment. [6] She also refused to grant parole to persons convicted in the 1993 Bombay bombings. [7]
On 12 August 2018,Tahilramani was appointed the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court,succeeding Justice Indira Banerjee. [8] [1] [9] At the Madras High Court,Tahilramani introduced several administrative changes,including the rule that cases concerning contempt of court would be heard only by the judges assigned to hear contempt matters. Notably one such case in which she instructed contempt proceedings to continue was against H. Raja,national secretary of the Bharatiya Janata Party,who had made several allegations against judges of the court after he was denied permission to create a structure for religious worship in a public place. [10]
On 28 August 2019,Tahilramani was transferred from the Madras High Court to the Meghalaya High Court by the Supreme Court of India. On 3 September 2019,she requested the collegium to reconsider their decision,but was ordered to undertake the transfer on 6 September 2019. The Supreme Court publicly refused to assign any reasons for the transfer,stating that it was to secure the "better administration of justice." [11] [12] Tahilramani's objections to the transfer occurred at a time when several other High Court judges had also made similar objections to transfers,which were also rejected and became the subject of public protests. [12] [13] [14] Tahilramani,who was due to retire in October 2020,consequently submitted her resignation,declining the transfer. [15] At the time of her resignation,she was only one of two female chief justices in constitutional courts in India. [16] Tahilramani's transfer was met with widespread protests,and the Madras High Court Advocates' Association announced that they would be boycotting court proceedings for one day to object. [17] The president of the association stated that Tahilramani had been "unfairly demoted," describing the unexplained transfer from the larger,established Madras High Court,consisting of 75 judges,to the newer and smaller 3-judge Meghalaya High Court as "undemocratic" [17] [18] [19] Following her retirement,the chairman of the Madras Bar Association,A.R.L. Sundaresan,described the transfer as "shocking," stating that during her tenure as Chief Justice,Tahilramani had significantly improved the hearing and disposal of pending cases,especially pending criminal appeals. [20] Other bar associations,including the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Bar Association convened special meetings to pass resolutions condemning the transfer. [21]
Along with protests from bar associations,the transfer was criticized by a number of public figures. The Hindu carried an editorial in which they stated that it revealed systemic flaws in judicial administration,especially with the Indian Supreme Court's collegium system. [22] The All India Democratic Women’s Association described the transfer as "vindictive". [23] Dravidar Kazhagam president K. Veeramani stated that Tahilramani's resignation demonstrated "self-respect," calling for a re-evaluation of judicial administration to increase transparency in transfers. [24] Former Supreme Court judge Madan Lokur wrote that the transfer was " ex facie suggestive of humiliation" and praised her decision to resign instead. [25]
In September 2019,the Madras High Court refused to hear a public interest petition filed by an advocate,which called upon the court to refrain from implementing the order transferring Tahilramani,holding petitioner did not have locus standi to challenge the decision. [26]
Following her retirement,Tahilramani declined to accept any post-judicial appointments,or discuss the transfer with the media. [20] [27]
Although the Supreme Court of India had refused to publicly disclose reasons for Tahilramani's transfer,in September 2019,the Indian Express published certain allegations which they reported were the substance of the Supreme Court's reasons for the decision. According to the Indian Express,unnamed sources had indicated that there were three reasons for Tahilramani's transfer. [28] According to the Indian Express,the Supreme Court had concerns that Tahilramani was allegedly not working for sufficient hours,was allegedly close to local politicians,had allegedly purchased property in Chennai,and further,had dissolved a bench which was refusing to allow the Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate cases concerning the theft of idols in temples in favour of allowing a retired police official to do so. [28] On 25 September 2019,sitting Supreme Court Justice D.Y. Chandrachud,speaking at a public event,stated that transferring judges was not a solution for complaints against them,calling for reforms in judicial transfers. [29]
On 30 September 2019,after Tahilramani's resignation,the Intelligence Bureau submitted a report based on which the then-Supreme Court Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi (now a Member of Parliament by government nomination) directed an investigation into Tahilramani for allegations of corruption relating to the purchase of properties and the dissolution of the bench hearing cases concerning idol thefts. [30] [31] In November 2019,media reports indicated that there were ongoing campaigns to raise funds to "reconstitute" this special bench that Tahilramani had dissolved,which resulted in a special investigation by the Madras High Court,as the constitution of benches is the prerogative of the court and cannot be compelled for financial reasons. A public interest petition seeking an investigation into these calls for the reconstitution of the special bench is ongoing. [32]
In a memoir published after his retirement,Justice Gogoi,explained that he took the decision to transfer Tahilramani to a court "where there was less work" after he felt there were credible allegations concerning irregularities,against her. [33]
Since 2019,there have been no reports on the outcome of the Central Bureau of Investigation's investigation of Tahilramani. CBI has concluded that in the reference made by registrar general of Supreme Court of India,no offence was found against Tahilramani and hence no case was registered.
The Supreme Court of India is the supreme judicial authority and the highest court of the Republic of India. It is the final court of appeal for all civil and criminal cases in India. It also has the power of judicial review. The Supreme Court,which consists of the Chief Justice of India and a maximum of fellow 33 judges,has extensive powers in the form of original,appellate and advisory jurisdictions.
The judiciary of India is a system of courts that interpret and apply the law in the Republic of India. India uses a common law system,first introduced by the British East India Company and with influence from other colonial powers and Indian princely states,as well as practices from ancient and medieval times. The Constitution of India provides concept for a single and unified judiciary in India.
Kesab Chandra Gogoi was an Indian politician who was the Chief Minister of the state of Assam for two months in 1982. For most of his political career,he was a member of Indian National Congress. He was a finance minister in the Assam state cabinet twice and a member of the Assam Legislative Assembly from Dibrugarh constituency.
Ranjan Gogoi is an Indian former advocate and judge who served as the 46th Chief Justice of India from 2018 to 2019,having previously served as a Judge of the Supreme Court of India from 2012 to 2018. He is currently a Member of the Rajya Sabha,having been nominated by President Ram Nath Kovind on 16 March 2020. Gogoi served as a judge in the Gauhati High Court from 2001 to 2010,and then was transferred as a judge to the Punjab and Haryana High Court from 2010 to 2011 where he later was the Chief Justice from 2011 to 2012. He is also a member of the Committee on External Affairs in the Rajya Sabha.
Dipak Misra is an Indian jurist who served as the 45th Chief Justice of India from 28 August 2017 till 2 October 2018. He is also former Chief Justice of the Patna High Court and Delhi High Court. He is the nephew of Justice Ranganath Misra,who was the 21st Chief Justice from 1990 to 1991.
Dipankar Datta is a judge of the Supreme Court of India. He is the former chief justice of the Bombay High Court and a judge of the Calcutta High Court.
Kuttiyil Mathew Joseph is a former judge of the Supreme Court of India;he retired on 16 June 2023. He is former chief justice of the Uttarakhand High Court. Before his appointment as chief justice of the High Court of Uttarakhand on 31 July 2014,he had served as a judge of the Kerala High Court for more than nine years.
Sharad Arvind Bobde is an Indian judge who served as the 47th Chief Justice of India from 18 November 2019 to 23 April 2021.
Nuthalapati Venkata Ramana is a former Indian judge and journalist who served as the 48th Chief Justice of India.
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh is the High Court of the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh. The seat of the High Court is currently located at Nelapadu,Amaravati.
Uday Umesh Lalit is an Indian lawyer and former Supreme Court Judge,who served as the 49th Chief Justice of India. Previously,he has served as a judge of Supreme Court of India. Prior to his elevation as a judge,he practised as a senior counsel at the Supreme Court. Justice Lalit is one of the six senior counsels who have been directly elevated to the Supreme Court. He is currently ‘Distinguished Visiting Professor’at Ashank Desai Centre for Policy Studies,Indian Institute of Technology,Bombay and Distinguished Visiting Professor at West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences.
Pradeep Nandrajog is an Indian Judge. He is former Chief Justice of Bombay High Court and also former Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court and Judge of Delhi High Court.
The Supreme Court of India was in crisis after a press conference was given by Supreme Court judges Jasti Chelameswar,Ranjan Gogoi,Madan Lokur,and Kurian Joseph,in which they spoke against the Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra that he allocated certain politically controversial cases to such benches which give favourable judgements towards a political party.
Suryakant Sharma is an Indian judge of the Supreme Court of India,set to become the 53rd Chief Justice of India,if the convention of seniority is followed. Prior to his elevation as judge,Kant was a Senior Advocate and also served as the Advocate General for Haryana.
Revati Mohite Dere is a judge in the Bombay High Court,India. She has written a number of significant judgments in relation to criminal procedure and police investigations in India,including cases concerning press freedom to report on criminal trials,death penalty sentences for repeated offences,and accountability within the police for false and improper investigations.
Bangalore Venkataramiah Nagarathna is a judge of the Supreme Court of India. She served as a judge of the Karnataka High Court from 2008 to 2021. Her father,E. S. Venkataramiah,was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India in 1989.
The Madras High Court is a High Court in India. It has appellate jurisdiction over the state of Tamil Nadu and the union territory of Puducherry. It is located in Chennai,and is one of the oldest high courts of India along with Calcutta High Court in Kolkata and Bombay High Court in Mumbai. The Madras High Court is one of four charter high courts of colonial India established in the four Presidency Towns of Madras,Bombay,Allahabad and Calcutta by letters patent granted by Queen Victoria,dated 26 June 1862. It exercises original jurisdiction over the city of Chennai,as well as extraordinary original jurisdiction,civil and criminal,under the letters patent and special original jurisdiction for the issue of writs under the Constitution of India. Covering 107 acres,the court complex is one of the largest in the world,second only to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. The four-storey administrative building attracts hundreds of litigants every day.
Pendency of court cases in India is the delay in the disposal of cases (lawsuits) to provide justice to the aggrieved person or organisation by judicial courts at all levels. The judiciary in India works in hierarchy at three levels - federal or supreme court,state or high courts,and district courts. The court cases is categorised into two types - civil and criminal. In 2023,the total number of pending cases of all types and at all levels rose above 50 million or 5 crores,including over 169,000 court cases pending for more than 30 years in district and high courts. 4.3 crore out of 5 crore cases,i.e more than 85% cases,are pending in district courts as of December 2022. Government itself is the biggest litigant,having 50% of the pending cases being sponsored by the state. Land and property disputes account for the largest set of pending cases. About 66% of all civil cases in India are related to land and property disputes;and 25% of all cases decided by the Supreme Court involve land disputes.
Lekshmana Chandra Victoria Gowri is an Additional Judge of the Madras High Court. Prior to her appointment,she was a politician from the Bharatiya Janata Party. Her selection engendered controversy after lawyers alleged her to have given hate speeches against religious minorities and unsuccessfully petitioned the Supreme Court of India to withdraw the appointment.