Theirs not to question why

The sudden transfer of two Bombay High Court (BHC) judges, Nishita Mhatre and D. B. Bhosale in the "public interest” galvanized some senior counsels to write a letter to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sarosh H. Kapadia, asking him to define what public interest is. In a letter dated October 10, 2011 they wrote they were distressed at the manner in which the transfers were made without giving any particulars, reports the Mumbai Mirror (MM) of October 13. Among the signatories are eminent counsels Iqbal Chagla, Bombay Bar Association president Rohit Kapadia, Edul P. Bharucha, Navroz Seervai, Kevic Setalvad and others.

Sarosh Kapadia: Is he answerable?

"To not be informed of the reasons for this transfer... can only mean an insinuation of corruption,” the letter mentions, adding that there are no allegations against Mhatre. In fact her husband Nirmal, who has for many years been involved in trade union activities and long-pending disputes with his employers, lost his case in the BHC. He subsequently obtained relief from the Supreme Court. Fearing that the CJI had not been given an impartial view of the situation, the letter asks the CJI to state the reasons for Mhatre’s transfer.

On October 18, MM reported that another group of 102 lawyers has written to the CJI pointing out that the earlier communication by senior counsels does not reveal in what capacity they were taking up the matter, that no lawyer can seek explanation from the highest judicial authority about such matters especially since all-India transfers are a precondition for judgeship. "We are of the firm view that advocates have no role to play as far as appointment, transfer and removal of judges of HC is concerned. It is a matter between the CJI, collegium and the central government.” The collegium, a panel of judges, is a vital part of the judiciary.

The second letter to the CJI categorically states: "None of the questions referred to in the (earlier) letter.... are required to be answered by your Lordship. We disapprove and disassociate ourselves from any such initiative taken by the senior counsels,” reports MM.