- 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
Advocates Across Tamil Nadu Boycott Court Proceedings Against Transfer Of Madras HC Chief Justice Tahilramani
[ By Bobby Anthony ]Almost all lawyers across Tamil Nadu abstained from court proceedings condemning the abrupt transfer of Madras High Court Chief Justice Vijaya Kamlesh Tahilramani to the Meghalaya High Court, even as Tahilramani herself abstained from attending court proceedings and tendered her resignation.Courts across the state of Tamil Nadu wore a deserted look as around 18,000...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Almost all lawyers across Tamil Nadu abstained from court proceedings condemning the abrupt transfer of Madras High Court Chief Justice Vijaya Kamlesh Tahilramani to the Meghalaya High Court, even as Tahilramani herself abstained from attending court proceedings and tendered her resignation.
Courts across the state of Tamil Nadu wore a deserted look as around 18,000 lawyers belonging to the Madras High Court Advocates Association (MBHAA) unanimously boycotted all court proceedings.
The premises of the Madras High Court had to be placed under the protection of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF).
The almost total impact has been attributed to a unanimous call taken by practically all the lawyers’ bar associations in Tamil Nadu, including the prestigious Madras Bar Association (MBA).
The courts were attended only by government advocates and hearing of most of cases had to be were adjourned to some other day.
The boycott which was conducted without much fanfare concluded with a brief demonstration near the Aavin gate of the Madras High Court.
In a related development, 50 advocates from the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court staged a demonstration condemning Chief Justice Tahilramani’s abrupt transfer.
Advocates of the Madurai Bench Madras High Court Advocates Association (MBHAA) as well as Madurai Bar Association (MBA) who decided to boycott court proceedings indefinitely also staged the protest.
The boycott also affected proceedings in several lower courts across the state of Tamil Nadu.
Chief Justice Vijaya Tahilramani’s resignation came shortly after the Supreme Court Collegium decided to transfer her as chief justice of the Meghalaya High Court.
Earlier, Chief Justice Tahilramani had written to the Supreme Collegium requesting it to reconsider its proposal to transfer her to Meghalaya High Court, but the Supreme Court Collegium headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi refused to accede to her request and stuck to its decision to transfer her to the Meghalaya High Court.
She was appointed as Chief Justice of the Madras High Court on August 8, 2018, transferred from Bombay High Court where she was acting chief justice between 2015 and 2017.
During her tenure at the Bombay High Court, Justice Tahilramani had on May 7, 2017, upheld the conviction and life imprisonment of 11 people in the post-Gujarat riots Bilkis Bano gangrape case, while setting aside the acquittal of seven persons, including policemen and doctors.
The Bilkis Bano case had been transferred to Maharashtra from Gujarat by the Supreme Court.