Contentious EGM reveals split in Andhra Pradesh High Court Bar on transfer of two judges

After news of an Extraordinary General Body Meeting (EGM) condemning the proposed transfers of judges of the Andhra High Court broke, office-bearers of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates' Association (APHCAA) have said that no such meeting was conducted. .In a communique issued on Friday, the Association has claimed that a resolution in this regard did not have any 'authorisation' from the lawyers' body. The notice also states that there has been no call to obstruct or abstain from court work. .The Supreme Court Collegium recently recommended the transfers of Justices Battu Devanand and D Ramesh Ramesh, and of five more judges on Thursday. While Justice Devanand was recommended for transfer to the Madras High Court, Justice Ramesh was recommended for transfer to the Allahabad High Court..Bar & Bench had reported on Saturday that the Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates' Association (APHCAA) on Friday had resolved to protest against the Supreme Court Collegium's proposal to transfer the two judges.Sources revealed that at a meeting held on Friday, the APHCAA condemned the arbitrary transfer of the two judges, and urged Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud to retain them at the Andhra Pradesh High Court.The resolution, signed by 28 members, has called for lawyers to abstain from courts on Friday and to take up different programs protesting the proposed transfers. It also requested the Chairman of the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh to condemn the transfers, and to take necessary steps to retain the two judges..A signatory to the resolution passed at the contentious EGM told Bar & Bench that the existing office-bearers of the APHCAA are close to the ruling party (YSR Congress) and only espouse its causes. "Since these judges were elevated to the High Court during the previous government's time, so they are not concerned. But the EGM was still convened by the remaining members and they [unofficially] passed the resolution, and have agreed to boycott courts from Monday", the source added. Advocate Peeta Raman, a signatory to the resolution and an attendee at the EGM in question, explained to Bar & Bench why the meeting was deemed to never have been called, and further, not attended by office-bearers. He said, "There is no association as of now as such since the tenures of the current office-bearers are over. But the members, as is their right, called for and organised an EGM without the presence of the President, Secretary etc, to condemn the transfers being proposed, since it might create fear in minds of other judges [against acting independently].".Response of Association's office-bearer.Advocate P Narasimha Murthy, Vice-President of the APHCAA, however, painted a different picture of the tenure of the existing office-bearers. While the State Bar Council has mandated elections to the Association every year around March, the last election could only take place in October 2021. "After the tenure had expired, we moved the State Bar Council in this regard and they passed an official resolution saying the current body is to continue till March, when polls should be held and the new body is to take over from April. As per the bye-laws, in the absence of office-bearers the Council itself leads the functioning of the association, but here they passed the resolution for us to remain till March. We will be holding elections then," he told Bar & Bench.Murthy added that the lawyers who held the meeting and passed the resolution did not have a right to do so without the office-bearers."No, they cannot, how can they? They are private persons who did not consult the body or the Council. The procedure is that these people have to normally make a representation or file a grievance to the Association to conduct such a meeting, but unfortunately they did not so. Here, if at all they have a grievance, they did not even approach the Bar Council. They know the legalities, that is why the did not approach any forum or court knowing they will fail."He claimed that the purported resolution was only initially drafted and signed by four advocates in a court hall, and later got more signatures and went to the media. "No official resolution has been passed. Till date, they have not moved any such representation or application. They are only doing this in their personal interest, the protests and call to abstain from work are being led by Advocate Posani Venkateswarlu, [not a signatory to the resolution] who is the legal cell President of the Telegu Desam Party."