- 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
All India Bar Association Criticizes Madras High Court Chief Justice Vijaya Tahilramani For Tendering Her Resignation
[ By Bobby Anthony ]The Delhi-based All India Bar Association (AIBA) press statement has criticized Madras High Court Chief Justice Vijaya Kamlesh Tahilramani for tendering her resignation and stated that it amounts to denigration of the Supreme Court collegium.The AIBA statement signed by its chairman Adish C Aggarwala also urged her to respect what it called “the collective wisdom of...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
The Delhi-based All India Bar Association (AIBA) press statement has criticized Madras High Court Chief Justice Vijaya Kamlesh Tahilramani for tendering her resignation and stated that it amounts to denigration of the Supreme Court collegium.
The AIBA statement signed by its chairman Adish C Aggarwala also urged her to respect what it called “the collective wisdom of the collegium”.
The AIBA stated that it should not be forgotten that Chief Justice Vijaya Kamlesh Tahilramani had all along benefited from the decisions of the Supreme Court collegium until she was elevated as Chief Justice of the Madras High Court on August 12, 2018.
The AIBA statement observed that after benefiting from these decisions of the Supreme Court collegium, it would be unfair to even imagine that there could be ulterior reasons for her transfer to the Meghalaya High Court.
The statement reminded her that while appointing Tahilramani as the acting Chief Justice of Bombay High Court, seniority was not considered.
Had there been any malice, she wouldn’t have been appointed as Acting Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court three times and as the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, the AIBA statement said.
The AIBA statement mentioned that that Chief Justice Tahilramani had been given a fairly long term of more than 13 months at the helm of the Madras High Court before the Supreme Court collegium decided to transfer her to the Meghalaya High Court.
The statement noted that all high courts in India enjoy equal status under the constitution and therefore considering any particular high court as less important or smaller would be improper.