Controversy erupts after Uttarakhand High Court Collegium recommends judicial officers' elevation

NEW DELHI: The Uttarakhand High Court collegium’s decision to recommend Supreme Court’s secretary general Ravindra Maithani and two other junior judicial officers for elevation to high court has triggered a controversy in the state, with a district judge shooting off a complaint to the Chief Justice of India, Prime Minister and law minister.
While Kumkum Rani, district judge of Tehri, wrote a letter of complaint against the collegium’s recommendations, another district judge, Meena Tiwari, took voluntary retirement and joined Co-operative Tribunal Dehradun as president.

In June the collegium – comprising chief justice KM Joseph, since elevated to the apex court, and justices Rajiv Sharma and VK Bist – had recommended names of Maithani, NS Dhanik and RC Khulbe for elevation to the high court.

In the process four most senior judges – DP Gairola, Kumkum Rani, Gyanendra Sharma and Meena Tiwari – were superseded.

Rani alleged in her letter to the PM and law minister that the three judicial officers recommended for elevation enjoyed proximity to some retired and sitting judges of high court and Supreme Court as well as a bureaucrat occupying an influential position in Delhi.

The law and justice ministry forwarded her complaint to the CJI “for appropriate action as deemed fit”, according to people aware of the matter. She said in her letter that the “procedure adopted by the collegium of the Hon’ble High Court was non-transparent, unjust and biased”, they said.

Separately, veteran judge Inderjeet Malhotra went on a day-long fast at Raj Ghat in Delhi to protest “injustice done to senior women judges of Uttarakhand High Court”.

Gairola, the most senior judicial officer in the state, who also worked as law secretary and registrar general of high court, has had an outstanding record and served in almost all the districts of Uttarakhand, said the people cited earlier.

Meanwhile, Rani in her letter levelled serious allegations of impropriety against a sitting judge of Uttarakhand High Court, and claimed that adverse remarks against her were recorded just a few days before the meeting of the collegium but not communicated to her for over two months.

When contacted by ET, the judge against whom Rani levelled allegations said, “There is no substance in her allegations. In any case I would not like to comment on this.”

Rani said in her letter that the adverse remarks pertained to an incident that was about two decades old and was completely unrelated to the annual confidential report period of 2017-2018. She said that an adverse entry was recorded on May 23 but not communicated to her till July 10. The collegium, she alleged, took immediate cognisance of the adverse entry and, without affording her an opportunity, hurriedly forwarded its recommendation for elevation of other judges.