High Court Judges Transfer to Delhi Court Contested: Kirti Uppal Opposes Decision in Letter to Supreme Court's Collegium
In a recent development, six judges have been transferred to the Delhi High Court from various High Courts across the country. The transfers, recommended by the Supreme Court Collegium, aim to address the shortage of judges in the Delhi High Court, which currently has 40 judges against a sanctioned strength of 60 [1][2].
Justice V Kameswar Rao, who was previously serving in the Karnataka High Court, has filled the position vacated by Justice Vibhu Bakhru, who was elevated and transferred as Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court. Other judges joining the Delhi High Court include Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre, Vivek Chaudhary, Om Prakash Shukla, Anil Kshetarpal, and Arun Kumar Monga [1][2].
However, the transfer has raised concerns among legal circles, particularly from Senior Advocate Kirti Uppal, the former President of Delhi High Court Bar Association. In a letter to the Chief Justice of India and the Supreme Court Collegium, Uppal expressed his apprehensions over the impact of these transfers on the administrative, judicial, and collegium structure of the Delhi High Court [1].
The transfer has resulted in a significant restructuring within the Delhi High Court’s collegium, the body responsible for recommending judicial appointments internally. It has also altered the seniority hierarchy, affecting judicial administration and case allocations. For instance, since Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre is senior to Justice Prathiba M Singh, she is now fifth in seniority after Justice Vivek Chaudhary in the Delhi High Court [1].
Uppal also highlighted the potential short-term disruptions due to changes in judicial composition but emphasized the long-term enhancement of judicial efficiency in Delhi’s overloaded court system [1]. He drew a parallel between the current transfer of judges and past judicial controversies, warning against repeating the supersession episodes of the 1970s and 80s, which eroded public trust in the judiciary [1].
One of the main concerns raised by Uppal is that external transfers may sideline the aspirations of local lawyers due to a lack of personal knowledge of their abilities. He implied that experienced local lawyers, currently aged 45-48, may have to restart and reestablish their reputation due to lack of personal knowledge about their caliber and talent by the new judges [1].
Uppal also emphasized the importance of personal knowledge of local lawyers' abilities in the judicial system. He stated that it is difficult to comprehend the reasons necessitating the reshuffle, which significantly diminishes opportunities for local advocates to be elevated to the Bench [1].
In conclusion, these transfers reflect a judicial policy aimed at strengthening the Delhi High Court by utilizing experienced judges from other courts. However, they bring administrative adjustments and impacts on judges’ seniority and court collegium dynamics, as underlined by Senior Advocate Kirti Uppal. The concerns raised by Uppal serve as a reminder of the importance of a fair and transparent judicial appointment process in maintaining public trust and confidence in the judiciary.
References: [1] The Indian Express. (2022, March 10). Transfer of six judges to Delhi High Court raises concerns. Retrieved from https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/transfer-of-six-judges-to-delhi-high-court-raises-concerns-7853225/ [2] Bar & Bench. (2022, March 9). Six judges transferred to Delhi High Court. Retrieved from https://www.barandbench.com/news/judiciary/six-judges-transferred-to-delhi-high-court [3] Live Law. (2022, March 9). Six judges transferred to Delhi High Court. Retrieved from https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/six-judges-transferred-to-delhi-high-court-175772
The transfers of six judges to the Delhi High Court, a move undertaken to alleviate the severe shortage of judges, have created a stir in the political sphere. This is apparent in the concerns raised by Senior Advocate Kirti Uppal, who sees potential repercussions on the administrative and judicial structure of the court, as well as on the dynamics of the court's collegium. This incident sheds light on the complexities of policy-and-legislation within the judicial system and general-news, as it illustrates the impact of such decisions on the broader legal landscape.
