Timing of Munnar verdict triggers legal row

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: A day after a Kerala high court division bench, that included the chief justice, ruled that the 2007 eviction drive in Munnar was "illegal", the timing of the order has triggered a debate in legal circles. The court's order was passed three days after a warrant was issued by the President of India transferring Chief Justice Manjula Chellur to the Calcutta high court.The President signed the warrant on July 21 and the Munnar verdict was delivered on July 25.
Senior lawyer C P Udhayabhanu told TOI that precedence and propriety in the judiciary demands that a judge cease issuing orders after receiving an order of transfer or promotion.
"There are several examples set by senior judges in this regard. Moreover, in the Munnar case, CJ had reserved judgment for over eight months which has sent a wrong message to lower courts which have been fighting the pendency menace", said Udhayabhanu.
Article 217(1) (c) in the Constitution says "the office of a Judge shall be vacated by his being appointed by the President to be a Judge of the Supreme Court or by his being transferred by the President to any other High Court within the territory of India". According to Udhayabhanu, the use of the term "being transferred" in the Article clearly refers to the issuance of transfer order. "Or else, it should have been explicitly stated as being relieved", he said.
A few years ago, Justice K Sreedharan - who got a transfer order to Gujarat HC - stopped the hearing in an ongoing case the moment he had been told by the Registrar about the transfer order.
Senior lawyer Kaleeswaram Raj however argued that there was nothing improper in the timing of the Munnar verdict. "The transfer order comes into effect only when the judge concerned is relieved. Till then, the judge can hear cases and issue verdicts," he said. "Only after the CJ is relieved is the next incumbent sworn in as CJ-in-charge".
Leader of the Opposition V S Achuthanandan announced on Saturday that he would approach the court with a review petition.
He quoted a 1966 judgment by the Kerala high court in the Adv N K Sasidharan vs Chief Justice case to support his argument. "Another impropriety in the order is the undue delay in delivering the verdict after completion of hearing. In the Anil Roy vs State of Bihar case in 2011, the Supreme Court directed to deliver judgment within two months of completion of hearing in a case. If the judgment is not delivered within six months of hearing, the parties can ask for a fresh hearing," VS said.