Punjab CJ transfer: Kalam sends back file saying consult the judge

Kalam pointed out that such a consultation was mandated by para 25.3 of the ‘‘memorandum showing the procedure for appointment and transfer of Chief Justices and Judges of High Courts.’’

When contacted, Union Law Minister H R Bhardwaj confirmed receipt of the President’s note but declined to comment on it.

The collegium, comprising Chief Justice of India R C Lahoti and the four seniormost judges of the Supreme Court, came up with the Guwahati proposal after the Centre disagreed with the earlier decision to move him to his home town Patna.

The Centre’s point was that Justice Roy’s transfer to Patna doesn’t fit the policy in force since 1983 of the Chief Justice of every High Court being from outside the state.

When the collegium first proposed to transfer him to Patna in the last week of September, Justice Roy happened to be, as required, consulted by Justice Lahoti.

When the collegium first proposed to transfer him to Patna in the last week of September, Justice Roy happened to be, as required, consulted by Justice Lahoti. But when the Government’s objection prompted a rethink in the collegium, Justice Lahoti did not consult Justice Roy on the proposal to move him instead to Guwahati.

This is the second time that Kalam has intervened in the controversy that has its roots in the April 19 strike by judges of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The judges went on mass casual leave to protest notices issued by Justice Roy to two of them for taking free membership in a club embroiled in litigation.

Shortly after the strike, Kalam sent a letter to the then Chief Justice of India, Justice V N Khare, expressing his ‘‘anguish’’ as well as ‘‘displeasure’’ at the conduct of the judges who obstructed work in the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Over five months later, the collegium decided to transfer the two senior most judges of the High Court, Justice G S Singhvi and Justice V K Bali, for leading the strike. At the same time, it decided to transfer Justice Roy as well. But the proposal to transfer Justice Singhvi and Justice Bali to the Gujarat High Court has not reached the President yet.

Para 25.3 of the memorandum, which forms the basis of the President’s objection to transfer Justice Roy to Guwahati, says: ‘‘The views on the proposed transfer of a Judge or a Chief Justice of a High Court should be expressed in writing and should be considered by the Chief Justice of India and the four senior-most Judges of the Supreme Court.

‘‘The personal factors relating to the concerned Judge, including the Chief Justice, and his response to the proposal, including his preference of places, should invariably be taken into account by the (collegium) before arriving at a conclusion on the proposal.’’