English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Those who took decision on transfer must answer how it was done: Karnataka HC judge Patel after resignation

Published

9 years ago

on

Karnataka High Court

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Justice Jayant Patel had resigned after learning that he was being transferred to Allahabad HC where he would have been third in queue for chief justice post

Justice Jayant Patel of the Karnataka High Court, who famously ordered a CBI enquiry into the Ishrat Jahan fake encounter case while he was a judge in the Gujarat high court, had sent in his resignation letter to Karnataka’s Chief Justice SK Mukherjee, on Monday. Justice Patel’s decision to quit – 10 months before he was set to retire –had come after he learned that he was being transferred to the Allahabad High Court, a move that would have ensured that he isn’t promoted to the rank of Chief Justice in Karnataka – or Allahabad for that matter.

While his resignation has created a flutter in the legal community of Karnataka, sent ripples across India’s judiciary and reignited the debate on the lack of transparency in the manner in which judges are appointed, transferred or elevated, all that Justice Patel has to say on the chain of events he has triggered is that those who took the decision on his transfer “must answer” on how this was done.

Had Justice Patel not been transferred to the Allahabad High Court he would have, by convention, been elevated to the rank of Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court. Incumbent Karnataka Chief Justice Mukherjee is set to retire on October 9, and Justice Patel was the next senior-most judge in the court. However, had he moved to the Allahabad High Court, Justice Patel would have been the third seniormost and with just 10 months left for his retirement, he would have effectively been out of the race for a promotion.

In an interview to the Indian Express, Justice Patel declined to attribute motives to the Supreme Court collegiums for deciding to transfer him to the Allahabad High Court and robbing him of his elevation but said: “Those who have taken decisions must answer how it was done. I cannot say anything”.

The judge, who enjoys support and respect across bar associations of Gujarat – where he had briefly been elevated as Acting Chief Justice before being transferred to the southern state as a regular judge – and Karnataka refused to link the denial of his confirmation as Chief Justice to his landmark decision of ordering a CBI probe in the Ishrat Jahan encounter case in 2011.

“When I became aware about my contemplated transfer to the Allahabad High Court, I decided to resign. I have already sent my resignation to the President of India. From yesterday, I am relieved of responsibilities. How it happened and what happened is for you to consider,” the Indian Express quoted Justice Patel as saying.

“I had no desire to be shifted to Allahabad. I have worked with dignity for 16 years as a judge, and for (the remaining) ten months why should I go to another place,” Justice Patel added.

Clearly anguished over being forced to resign and being denied what many feel was his rightful due, Justice Patel said: “What I feel is that I did my duty as per the oath of my office. Punishment is ultimately in God’s hands. One thing I can say is that wherever I worked, it has been with all sincerity and strictly as per my oath of office.”

Asked specifically if he would have been elevated had he not ordered the CBI probe in the Ishrat Jahan encounter – a case that had pointed fingers at the then Gujarat chief minister and now Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the then minister of state for home in Gujarat, Amit Shah, who is now the BJP national president – Justice Patel said: “Everyday we take decisions. We do not look at whether the case is about X or Y and we cannot decide a matter like that. We do not see the name of the party and decide the course. This is what is expected of us. I don’t think this could be the reason (for my transfer) but I cannot answer as the decisions were taken by someone else.’’

Senior Supreme Court advocates Dushyant Dave and Yatin Oza have both indicated that Justice Patel was denied the Chief Justice’s rank on account of his decision to order a CBI probe into the Ishrat Jahan case.

Advocates who met him after news of his resignation broke on Tuesday in an effort to get him to reconsider his decision said that Jutice Patel had conveyed that matters were beyond reconsideration.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

India News

LPU students protest over reported rape allegation, police call it rumour

Students at Lovely Professional University protested over a reported rape allegation involving a worker, with police describing the claim as a rumour.

Published

11 hours ago

on

September 27, 2026

By

Students of Lovely Professional University (LPU) in Punjab staged a protest after an allegation involving the reported rape of a student by a worker at the university surfaced.

The protest led to disruption around the university, with students taking to the streets and blocking the Jalandhar-Phagwara National Highway, according to the report.

The allegation triggered anger among students, who demanded action over the reported incident.

Police describe rape claim as rumour

Police, however, described the rape claim as a rumour, indicating that the allegation had not been established as a confirmed incident.

The distinction is important because the reported sexual assault allegation should not be treated as a confirmed rape unless investigators or other authoritative sources establish that fact.

The protests nevertheless continued as students sought clarity and action over the issue.

Protest disrupts traffic

The student demonstration also affected traffic on the Jalandhar-Phagwara National Highway. The protest brought attention to the allegations and the concerns being raised by students at the university.

With police calling the claim a rumour, further verification and investigation would be necessary to establish what actually happened.

Continue Reading

India News

INDIA bloc likely to meet on September 30 over Gyanesh Kumar row

INDIA bloc parties are likely to meet in New Delhi on September 30 amid growing opposition to Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.

Published

23 hours ago

on

September 26, 2026

By

Rahul-Gandhi

Opposition parties belonging to the INDIA bloc are set to meet in New Delhi on September 30 to discuss concerns surrounding the Election Commission, the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and a proposed removal motion against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

The proposed meeting comes amid growing coordination among opposition parties over the functioning of the poll panel and demands for action against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The parties are also discussing a possible joint response to the developments.

Why is the INDIA bloc meeting being planned?

The INDIA bloc meeting on September 30 comes amid reports of objections within the Election Commission over certain decisions and orders related to the SIR exercise. 

According to the report, Opposition leaders have been discussing a coordinated response to their concerns over the Election Commission and the electoral-roll revision process. 

The issue is also expected to be discussed at the Congress Working Committee meeting scheduled for September 29, a day before the proposed INDIA bloc meeting.

Gyanesh Kumar removal demand in focus

The demand for the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar has become a major point of contention between the Opposition and the Election Commission.

The CPI(M), CPI and CPI(ML)-Liberation have demanded Kumar’s removal and an immediate halt to the SIR exercise. Congress has also intensified its criticism of the CEC.

Opposition parties are also working on a fresh removal motion against Gyanesh Kumar. The September 30 meeting is expected to finalise the strategy for the motion, including the collection of signatures. According to the report, this would be the Opposition’s third such attempt. 

What is the SIR controversy?

The political dispute is linked to the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, or SIR.

The controversy intensified following a report that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had recorded objections on several occasions concerning decisions and orders related to the SIR process.

The Election Commission has said that differing views and observations are part of normal deliberations in a multi-member constitutional body. The poll panel has also maintained that its orders have legal sanction and follow statutory procedures, while stating that the final decisions on the SIR were taken unanimously. 

TMC and Left parties coordinate over the issue

The developments have also brought the Trinamool Congress and the CPI(M) together on the Election Commission issue, despite their political differences in West Bengal.

CPI(M) general secretary M A Baby proposed an immediate meeting to discuss a joint strategy. According to the report, Mamata Banerjee spoke with M A Baby and Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi, after which the leaders settled on September 30 for the meeting. 

What could be discussed at the September 30 meeting?

The proposed meeting is expected to focus on:

  • Concerns surrounding the Election Commission
  • The Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls
  • Opposition demands concerning CEC Gyanesh Kumar
  • A possible fresh removal notice against the CEC
  • A coordinated response by INDIA bloc parties

The exact agenda and participation will depend on the discussions among the opposition parties before the proposed meeting.

Continue Reading

India News

“Will die but won’t give up”: Sahil Wakode’s parents urge IIT students to continue fight 

Sahil Wakode’s parents have appealed to IIT Bombay students to continue their fight for justice amid the ongoing investigation into their son’s death.

Published

1 day ago

on

September 26, 2026

By

Sahil Wakode

The parents of IIT Bombay student Sahil Wakode have appealed to students to continue raising their voices and fighting for justice following their son’s death.

Sahil Wakode, a second-year student at IIT Bombay, died in his hostel room on September 18. His death has led to student protests and an ongoing investigation by the Mumbai Crime Branch.

What Sahil Wakode’s parents have alleged

Sahil’s parents have alleged that their son faced caste-based discrimination and harassment at IIT Bombay before his death. They have sought action against those they hold responsible and have demanded a thorough investigation into the circumstances surrounding his death.

The family has also called for a CBI inquiry and has sought the arrest of officials named in the case. These remain allegations and are part of the ongoing investigation.

The Mumbai Crime Branch took over the probe after an FIR was registered following the complaint by Sahil’s parents.

IIT Bombay’s position

IIT Bombay has said that Sahil was allegedly caught using a mobile phone during a mid-semester examination and had uploaded the question paper to ChatGPT to seek answers.

The institute has maintained that no disciplinary action had been initiated against him. It said the matter had been discussed with him by the instructor and the Head of the Department, who counselled him and assured him that the incident would not adversely affect his academic career.

The circumstances surrounding Sahil’s death are being investigated by the appropriate authorities.

Investigation continues

The case remains under investigation, with the Mumbai Crime Branch examining the circumstances surrounding Sahil’s death and the allegations made by his family.

His parents have continued to demand justice and action against those they believe were responsible, while the investigation is expected to establish the facts surrounding the case.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com