The Government of India has officially designated Justice Biren Vaishnav as the Acting Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court during Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal’s sanctioned leave, spanning from February 18 to March 2.
This interim appointment ensures the uninterrupted administration of justice and maintains institutional stability within the High Court.
This appointment occurs against the backdrop of escalating tensions within the legal fraternity. The Gujarat High Court Advocates’ Association has unanimously passed a resolution advocating for the reassignment of Chief Justice Agarwal to an alternative jurisdiction.
This demand arises from concerns over recent alterations to the judicial roster, a procedural mechanism that dictates the equitable allocation of cases among judges. Such changes have sparked apprehension regarding their potential impact on judicial efficiency and impartiality.
In an official communiqué issued by the Ministry of Law and Justice, Justice Vaishnav’s temporary elevation was authorized pursuant to Article 223 of the Constitution of India.
The notification explicitly states: “In exercise of the power conferred by Article 223 of the Constitution of India, the President is pleased to appoint Shri Justice Biren Aniruddha Vaishnav, Judge of Gujarat High Court, to perform the duties of office of the Chief Justice of that High Court during the period of absence of Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court, who is proceeding on leave from February 18 up to March 2.”
The GHCAA’s resolution highlights broader concerns regarding procedural modifications affecting judicial administration.
The structured assignment of cases is integral to maintaining an efficient judicial process and ensuring that no undue burdens are placed on any single judge. Any abrupt or opaque modifications to this system may provoke resistance within the legal community, as demonstrated by the GHCAA’s recent action.
Justice Biren Vaishnav, a distinguished jurist of the Gujarat High Court, assumes interim leadership to prevent administrative disruptions during Chief Justice Agarwal’s temporary absence. Nevertheless, discourse surrounding her proposed transfer continues to be a subject of deliberation among judicial and legal stakeholders.
These developments underscore the intricate balance between judicial governance and the interests of the legal profession. The GHCAA’s appeal for reassignment “within the framework of law” reflects the procedural rigor with which such matters must be navigated.
As Justice Vaishnav assumes his temporary responsibilities, ongoing discourse regarding judicial administration, institutional transparency, and procedural integrity is expected to persist in the coming weeks.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
