In a reshuffle at the Madras High Court, the Supreme Court collegium has recommended that Vijaya Kamalesh Tahilramani be made Chief Justice of the court while current Chief Justice Indira Banerjee be elevated to the Supreme Court.
According to a report in The Hindu, the announcement was made by the collegium on Friday. The body found Justice Tahilramani to be “suitable in all respects” for the post.
Justice Tahilramani is the senior-most judge of the Bombay High Court and was appointed judge in 2001.
As per the ToI report, the collegium reportedly stated that it had taken into consideration combined seniority on all-India basis of chief justices and senior puisne judges of high courts, apart from their merit and integrity.
The collegium of the Supreme Court comprises the Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, as well as Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Madan B Lokur.
Justice Vijaya Kamlesh Tahilramani had been appointed as Acting Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court in 2015 and 2017.
According to a report in Bar and Bench, the outgoing Justice Indira Banerjee was appointed as judgeship of the Calcutta High Court in 2002. She was transferred to the Delhi High Court in 2016, being elevated as Chief Justice of the Madras High Court in April last year.
A statement from the collegium also said that Justice Indira Banerjee stands at No 4 in the combined seniority of high court judges on all-India basis.
Along with Indira Banerjee, the collegium also recommended the elevation of Odisha High Court Chief Justice Vineet Saran and also reiterated their earlier recommendation of Justice KM Joseph to the Supreme Court.
The collegium said, “We have carefully considered the observations made by the Law Minister in his letters dated 26th April, 2018 and 30th April, 2018 addressed to the Chief Justice of India referring back, for reconsideration, the recommendation made by us on 10th January, 2018 for appointment of Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph, Chief Justice of Uttarakhand High Court, as Judge of the Supreme Court. The Collegium, on due consideration of all the aspects mentioned in the aforesaid two letters, resolves to reiterate the afore-mentioned recommendation, especially since nothing adverse regarding suitability of Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph has been pointed out in the aforesaid letters.”