- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Supreme Court Collegium Recommends Names of Two Advocates for Appointment as Judges of Madras High Court
Supreme Court Collegium Recommends Names of Two Advocates for Appointment as Judges of Madras High Court
The Supreme Court Collegium led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, Justice SK Kaul and Justice Sanjiv Khanna, recommended the names of two advocates for appointment as Judges of the Madras High Court. The named of the two advocates are:
1. N Senthilkumar, and
2. G Arul Murugan
The recommendation comes after the Madras High Court Collegium recommended their names in its resolution dated 3 August, 2022 and the same was concurred by Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and the Governor.
The Supreme Court Collegium had considered the recommendation in May 2023, however, deferred taking a decision as it required the Madras High court Collegium to go through the issues flagged by the Union government and to give its final word on their suitability.
On 27 June, 2023, the Madras High Court Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala, considered the government's inputs and forwarded the Madras High Court Collegium's recommendation to the Supreme Court Collegium, confirming the suitability of the two candidates.
The resolution noted that Senthilkumar has an experience of over 28 years at the Bar, while Murugan has been practicing as a lawyer for over 24 years,
The resolution further stated that Senthilkumar belongs to the Scheduled Caste Community and Murugan to the Other Backward Class category.
Their elevation and consequent appointment as judges of the Madras High Court will “enhance the representation on the Bench to marginalized communities,” the Collegium resolution opined.