Form of words:
New Delhi: The transfer of Chief Justice of Madras High Court Sanjib Banerjee to the Meghalaya High Court has created a stir for the past few days. questions It is being raised on whether it was a “conviction transfer”.
Justice Banerjee enrolled as an advocate in November 1990 and began practicing primarily in the Calcutta High Court, as well as the Supreme Court. He was elevated to the Bench as a judge in June 2006, and took over as the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court on 4 January this year.
However, just eight months later, the Supreme Court Collegium recommended his transfer. The decision was taken in the collegium meeting held on 16 September, but the resolution was published only on 9 November. The Center informed about his transfer on November 15.
Ever since the news of the transfer came, Several senior advocates, the Madras Bar Association (MBA), the Madras High Court Advocates Association (MHAA), and even a retired Madras High Court judge, Justice K. raised Question on the correctness of the decision
The last time such an incident happened was in 2019, when the then Chief Justice of Madras High Court, VK Tahilramani, was transferred to the Meghalaya High Court after a tenure of one year. Judge resigned When the Supreme Court Collegium refused to reconsider its decision.
More than 200 lawyers of Madras High Court wrote Regarding Justice Banerjee’s transfer to Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, she highlighted the “secrecy” around the collegium’s decisions and sought to know the reasons behind the transfer recommendation.
He said several orders upholding the constitutional rights and values of free speech, secularism, free and fair elections, right to health and accountability of the state by Justice Banerjee would have earned him the “wrath of those in power”.
From slamming the Election Commission and holding it “responsible” for the second wave of COVID-19, to ordering a probe into whether the Puducherry unit of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) used bulk text messages to campaign for Justice Banerjee made the news several times during her 10-month tenure, to repeatedly question the central government for its management of the pandemic.
‘Maybe should face murder charges’
On 26 April this year, a bench of Justice Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamurthy criticized The Election Commission of India (ECI) earlier this year for “not stopping political parties” from violating the COVID-19 protocol during their campaign rallies for the assembly elections.
Justice Banerjee was quoted as saying That the poll watchdog “is single-handedly responsible for the second wave of Covid-19” and that its officers “probably should be booked on murder charges”.
The commission then moved the Supreme Court against the observation, saying the remarks were “unnecessary, clearly derogatory and derogatory”.
In its May 6 decision on the appeal of the Election Commission, Supreme Court said The question of deleting the comments does not arise as they were not part of the formal order. However, it did loud that “the High Court’s remarks were harsh” and “metaphorically inappropriate”.
In April, the High Court also held a special meeting on Sunday. denial of prohibitory order Under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure issued by the Election Commission in Puducherry. The court was headed by the secretary of the Puducherry unit of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) R. Rajangam was hearing a PIL.
A bench headed by Justice Banerjee then slammed the Election Commission for not giving “any cogent reason for banning the movement of citizens and how citizens can choose to go about their business”.
Terming the EC’s order as “outspoken”, the bench observed that “no authoritarian rule can be possible in the country and neither can there be any regiment of citizens or their lives”. It then asked the ECI to issue a clarification that the order “would not stand in the way of citizens going about their normal business and work and even gathering for private functions, if only on Sundays”. To celebrate in the evening or on Monday afternoon”.
‘Serious violation of BJP’
Days before the Puducherry assembly elections in April, the Madras High Court directed the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) to investigate whether the Puducherry unit of the BJP used Aadhaar data to send bulk text messages for campaigning Was.
A bench headed by Justice Banerjee refused to accept the contention of the BJP that it had obtained mobile numbers through door-to-door campaigns by party workers from time to time.
“There appears to be a serious violation by the sixth respondent political party (BJP) in conducting its campaign in Puducherry for the upcoming assembly elections,” court order said.
Justice Banerjee’s bench also drawn The Center in July this year for failing to implement OBC reservation in seats under the All India Quota (AIQ) in medical and dental colleges of Tamil Nadu. observation a. were done on contempt petition Moved by Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) for failing to implement a High Court against the Center order passed To provide OBC reservation in admission in medical colleges in July last year.
contempt proceedings were fell A month later, the central government notified 27 per cent reservation for OBC candidates for admission to central medical colleges under AIQ.
‘It is a secular country’
On 9 August, a High Court division bench comprising Justice Banerjee dismissed a petition seeking to ban Chief Minister MK Stalin from key committees under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, unless he A Hindu did not take vows in front of a Hindu God. Temple that he will claim the Hindu faith.
“Discord, animosity and doubt in the name of religion must stop. It is a secular country and secularism means tolerance towards other religions.” count said.
A bench headed by Justice Banerjee in September repeated an order Passed by Bombay High Court which stayed the operation of two sub-divisions Information Technology Rules 2021,
These clauses – 9(1) and 9(3) – require publishers of news on the Internet and over-the-top (OTT) platforms such as Netflix and Prime Video to comply with a ‘code of conduct’ and a government Led three-tier grievance redressal mechanism. The courts found that the two clauses violate the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under the Constitution.
Read also: ‘Could rob freedom of print and electronic media’ – Madras HC stays on 2 sub-sections of IT rules
Center drawn on covid management
Justice Banerjee also pulled up the Center on several issues related to COVID-19 management in Tamil Nadu.
During the hearing on April 22, a bench headed by him raised concerns over the cost of the COVID-19 vaccine, emphasizing That it could create a “financial burden” for people aged 18-45 and “leave them in a lurch”.
Then on April 29, Justice Banerjee asked the Center what it was doing for the past one year instead of anticipating and preparing for a second wave of COVID-19. a . Comments made during the hearing of auto inspiration Court-initiated PIL for monitoring of COVID-19 management in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.
“Why are we acting only in April when we had a year off? Despite the lockdown being in place for most of the past one year, we are witnessing a state of utter despair,” Justice Banerjee Allegedly Additional Solicitor General R.K., appearing for the Centre. Sankaranarayanan told.
In May the following month, a bench headed by Justice Banerjee advised the Center to disclose the basis on which it would provide COVID vaccines, medicines, oxygen and more to various states and union territories to fight the second wave of the pandemic. Allocating in the same way.
“We are a country. We have to share it (resources) equally and in this comes the role of the central government. We hope that the central government will do it on rational and proper considerations and not on any other considerations,” was Justice Banerjee quoted as saying,
After a few days, the center also on the provocation of the court informed The High Court said it has increased the allocation of oxygen to Tamil Nadu from 419 tonnes to 519 tonnes per day under the National Oxygen Scheme.
In July, Justice Banerjee presided over a bench that rejected A petition calling for the reopening of all places of worship in Tamil Nadu, stating that “the right to practice religion is certainly subject to the right to life and when the right to life is threatened, to practice religion”. The right can only back down”.
(Edited by Rohan Manoj)
Read also: Madras HC on election rallies says EC officials can be booked for murder
subscribe our channel youtube And Wire
Why is the news media in crisis and how can you fix it?
India needs free, unbiased, non-hyphenated and questionable journalism even more as it is facing many crises.
But the news media itself is in trouble. There have been brutal layoffs and pay-cuts. The best of journalism is shrinking, crude prime-time spectacle.
ThePrint has the best young journalists, columnists and editors to work for it. Smart and thinking people like you will have to pay a price to maintain this quality of journalism. Whether you live in India or abroad, you can Here,