President Asks Justice Nisha Banu, Who Hasn’t Abided By Transfer Order, To Join Kerala High Court By Dec 20

President gives Deadline to transfer Implementation.

The President of India has also taken a firm stand in a long protracted judicial administrative issue on a High Court judge. Justice J. Nisha Banu, who is a current judge at the Madras High Court, has been officially instructed to take her new position in the Kerala High Court. This particular order in which she was given by the President meant that she had to join the new post by, or before, December 20, 2025. This order follows a massive lapse of time in her obligation to a prior transfer warning of earlier this year. 

This is a new development that has served as a rare case of a publically required deadline on which a judge can be transferred. This order was given after the Chief Justice of India, Surya Kant, consulted him on the matter to end the administrative impasse. The central government was compelled to take action since the judge did not take her new charge in about two months. The notification was issued by the Union Ministry of Law and Justice to facilitate the successful operation of the judicial roster in the two states. This step brings out the role of the executive in implementing the suggestions of the Supreme Court Collegium with regard to judicial appointments and transfers.

The postponement in the transfer was reportedly a source of uncertainty in both the law circles of Tamil Nadu and Kerala. The order issued by the President provides clearly that the judge should assume control of her office in the Kerala High Court before the indicated date. This ultimatum is a good indication that the administrative orders on judicial postings should be followed within a reasonable period. It emphasizes upon the binding features of the orders of transfer when they are already sealed with the Presidential seal. The move is regarded as a way of maintaining the sanctity of the constitutional process of judiciary.

Standoff and Reasons of Delay.

The scandal started when the Supreme Court Collegium suggested the transfer of Justice Nisha Banu of Madras High Court to Kerala High Court. Even though the official notice was given in mid-October, the judge did not rush to move to Kochi to assume her new responsibilities. Rather she stayed in Chennai and took leave mentioning personal considerations as the reason she could not join at once. It has been reported that she had requested earned leave to go and attend the marriage arrangements of her son during this time. At the same time, she had filed a request with the Collegium requesting that her order of transfer should be reconsidered.

This created a special administrative purgatory in which one judge was technically changed but had not been physically displaced. Immediately after the notification was published, Justice Banu no longer went to see court proceedings in the Madras High Court. Nevertheless, she failed to officially petition the Kerala High Court, which made her a fugitive notwithstanding a few weeks. The non appearance of her in Madras on the bench caused the cases sitting before her to pile up, and this was a source of worry among the local Bar. The fact that the absence was long and the person was not transferred to the new station also cast doubt on the issue of judicial discipline and transfer procedures.

The personal challenges and the possible damages to her career advancement were the reasons why the judge demanded reconsideration. Cases where judges request a review of transfer orders are not uncommon, but they are usually supposed to do so when the request is denied. The silence on her part by the Collegium in the present instance contributed to the perplexity. The fact that the government intervened and gave her a hard deadline implies that her demand to stay in Madras or be moved to another court was denied. The stalemate made legal scholars argue between the rights of judicial and the administrative demand of the judicial system.

Seniority and Collegium Problems.

One of the main causes of the opposing to this transfer seems to be the problem of the judicial seniority. Madras high court Justice Nisha Banu is presently the second or third senior most judge. This appointment gives her a platform in the High Court Collegium that appoints judges to the lower judiciary, and suggests lawyers to be promoted to the High Court. One of the greatest administrative powers and prestige in the judicial hierarchy of the state is the position of being a member of the Collegium. Her promotion to the Kerala High Court would change this status radically.

When Justice Banu joined the Kerala High Court, her seniority would decrease by far, and she is said to have been ranked number 9. This disenfranchisement would cause her to lose her office in the Collegium of the High Court where only the three senior-most judges are usually members. It is a significant demotion in actuality, despite the fact that the various states in which the position of a judge on the High Court is constitutionally equal. This dramatic reduction in hierarchy is the primary factor that caused her to not like the new posting according to the views of many legal observers.

The case has also raised a controversy with regard to fairness of senior judges being transferred to courts where they lose their administrative powers. According to lawyers who defend Justice Banu, such transfers are de-motivating and might appear to be a punitive action without any specific reason. They argue that she would have been taken to a High Court where her seniority would have been safeguarded like Andhra Pradesh. On the contrary, critics note that transfers are carried out in the name of improved administration of justice and individual seniority must not be above institutional requirements. The conflict between individual career path and institutional location lies in the center of this conflict.

Scrutiny and Government Response of the Parliament.

The legislative arm of the government could not ignore the delay that was witnessed in the transfer of Justice Banu. In winter session of Lok Sabha, the lower house of India Parliament, the issue was brought up. Member of Parliament of Congress K. M. Sudha R. asked the ministry of Law and Justice certain questions about the position of a judge. The MP wanted to know whether Justice Banu would still remain a member of Madras High Court Collegium with the transfer order.