A legal storm has erupted over the transfer of Madras High Court Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee to the considerably smaller Meghalaya High Court with lawyers demanding why to know why a “fearless judge” who was seeking to check corruption in the judiciary is being moved after less than a year in the job.

More than 200 lawyers have signed a 12-page petition opposing the transfer and asking Chief Justice N. V. Ramana to “reconsider in the public interest its decision”. The petition calls the transfer plan a “punitive” action and describes the judge as “competent (and) fearless. And an efficient administrator”. A second petition, making the same demand, has been signed by 23 senior Madras High Court lawyers.

The senior lawyers are calling for the Supreme Court Collegium -- which recommends transfers and promotions -- to give an explanation of why Banerjee is being transferred after just 10 months in the post. Senior lawyers also point out that the Collegium made its decision to transfer Banerjee on September 16 but did not make it public till very recently.

“The public has a right to know the reasons for this transfer. Until that is done, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that a judge is being rebuked for discharging his duties without fear or favour,” the lawyers said. They warned that lack of a satisfactory explanation could “erode the (public) faith” in the justice system.

Banerjee was reportedly working to root out corruption and strengthen the judiciary in Tamil Nadu, the petition said. “It is known in legal circles in Tamil Nadu that in order to ensure a totally free and independent judiciary, inquiries were afoot under the tenure of Chief Justice Banerjee to check corruption in the judiciary. His intolerance for corruption and inefficiency is well known and widely appreciated, the petition stated.

“The instant transfer would quell any such effort to strengthen the judiciary in the State", the document said. The transfer is “a travesty. He is a bold and good judge,” said one lawyer who has appeared before Banerjee regularly. The petitions say that Banerjee has been rigorous in demanding accountability from authorities in carrying out their statutory duties.

Says another senior lawyer: “My experience of him is utmost integrity with a sharp judicial intellect coupled with practical intelligence and completely impartial.”

The petition noted there has been a tendency in the past for judges who demand accountability from authorities to be shifted to “less important” locations. The Madras High Court deals with some 35,000 cases a year while in Meghalaya the number of court cases in a month totals around 70 to 75,

“Such "punishment transfers", as they came to be known during the infamous Emergency, send out an alarming signal that honest and fearless judges are subjected to political retribution and independence of the judiciary is under threat,” the advocates said.

There are also contrary voices within the legal profession and petitions supporting Banerjee’s transfer. One petition accuses Banerjee of rude behaviour and of not giving plaintiffs a fair hearing. “Rebuking, insulting and threatening of Litigants and Lawyers have become so common that arguing of cases on merits by genuine litigants and Advocates have become almost impossible,” says the petition by a lawyer who has filed several public interest cases and says he did not get a fair hearing from Justice Banerjee. “Orders are being passed, without perusing the pleadings and other documents or due hearing of the parties and based purely on perceptions and unpredictable, impulsive mood of Mr Justice Sanjib Banerjee,” says the aggrieved lawyer.

Another lawyer agrees that Banerjee can be impatient. He says: “His problem is that he was an extremely competent commercial lawyer. He comes with huge commercial knowledge. So when lawyers are arguing, you need to be right on the ball.” Adds another lawyer: “When somebody makes a fundamental mistake, he can be a bit abrasive.”

However, the representation by 23 senior lawyers who have appeared regularly before the high court points out that Banerjee has managed very well during the pandemic. The petition says: “During his term, he (Justice Banerjee) has discharged his functions both in the administrative and the judicial side to the best of his capabilities, bringing honour to the office he held. He has been a good administrator and in the judicial side disposed of a few thousand cases even during the devastating covid pandemic.”

The petition adds: “We are unable to fathom the reasons for his sudden transfer to another court.” In a recent ruling, Banerjee stated, “There has to be a time when the prejudice and vendetta have to be shed particularly when it comes to practising religion. This is a secular country and secularism implies tolerance for the other religion." He has also passed an order to guard media freedom and free speech.

The senior advocates also point out that Banerjee took over in January 2021 and all hearings since he took over have been virtual. “He managed it so well. The kind of disposals the Madras High Court has shown during the last 10 months, it really didn’t matter whether you were physical or virtual,” says one lawyer, who says he only met Banerjee in person during an annual Judges Vs Lawyers cricket match.

Taking another line of argument, the senior advocates point out that, “It takes at least a year for a chief justice after assuming charge as the head of the state judiciary, to understand the administration, composition and challenges of the institution.”

The Madras High Court lawyers also point out that since 2017 there have been three chief justices (not counting Sanjib Banerjee) who have stayed for barely over a year Indira Banerjee was promoted to the Supreme Court after a 16-month term.

Vijaya Tahilramani was also transferred abruptly to the Meghalaya High Court after just 13 months in Chennai. Tahilramani did not take up the assignment and resigned. When she was a Bombay High Court judge, Justice Tahilramani had upheld the conviction of 11 people in the controversial Bilkis Bano case. After her, Madras High Court Chief Justice Amreshwar Prasad Sahi had a 13-month term before he retired. “Short tenures and abrupt transfers stand in the way of a cohesive leadership and meaningful administrative reforms,” the lawyers noted.