Too much is being read into the “unusual transfer” of the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, Justice Vijaya Kamlesh Tahilramani to the Meghalaya High Court (Editorial, September 10). Instead of looking at it as a step done with the best intention of leveraging her experience of having served at various courts across India, the hue and cry over it shows our scant regard for the collective decision of the collegium. After all, it is just a transfer of a Chief Justice of one High Court to another. Criticising the prerogative of the collegium that is mandated to make such judicial transfers is uncalled for.
R. Prabhu Raj,
Bengaluru
It is only the justice delivery system and the public at large that stand to lose, being unable to make use of Justice Tahilramani’s vast judicial experience (Page 1, “Don’t wish to discuss my transfer or resignation, says Tahilramani”, September 10). Though it is arguable that “one high court is as good as any other”, perhaps the collegium could have considered her request to roll back its decision.
A. Jainulabdeen,
Chennai
During my service as the head of a division in a Central government department, I often encountered several cases of refusal by staff under my charge to get transferred to “undesirable areas” — North-east India, Jammu and Kashmir, or even the Andaman Islands even though they were liable for transfer anywhere in India according to service rules. The person concerned would try to move heaven and earth to get the order cancelled, with the result that posts in these areas remained unfilled, thereby delaying development. More often than not, such a transfer was not viewed as in public interest but as being biased, punitive in nature and unusual. There is need to change this attitude. Perhaps Justice Tahilramani would have sent out a powerful signal had she accepted the order.
N. Rama Rao,
Chennai
