The Madras High Court witnessed an emotional farewell on Friday as it bid adieu to Justice M S Ramesh, a judge renowned for his extraordinary productivity. In a remarkable nine-year tenure, Justice Ramesh disposed of a staggering over 85,000 cases, leaving behind a legacy of judicial efficiency.
A Stellar Judicial Career Marked by Efficiency
Justice M S Ramesh was appointed as a judge of the Madras High Court on October 5, 2016. His journey to the bench began with a law degree from Madurai Law College. He started his legal practice primarily at the principal bench in Chennai, spending four formative years under the tutelage of Justice S Jagadeesan before commencing independent practice in 1994.
His expertise spanned a wide array of legal domains, making him a versatile jurist. He specialized in:
- Writ jurisdiction
- Civil and criminal cases
- Arbitration matters
- Labour and service law disputes
Before his elevation, he also served the state in significant capacities as an additional government pleader and government advocate, gaining deep insight into governmental litigation.
The Farewell and the Growing Vacancy Crisis
During the farewell proceedings, Advocate-General P S Raman highlighted a pressing concern facing the court. He noted that Justice Ramesh is the 11th judge to retire this year, a trend that is severely affecting the court's functioning.
With Justice Ramesh's superannuation on December 27, the working strength of the Madras High Court has now dwindled to just 53 judges. This number stands in stark contrast to the court's sanctioned strength of 75 judges, revealing a deficit of 22 judges. This significant gap poses a serious challenge to the timely administration of justice in Tamil Nadu.
The Lasting Impact of a Prolific Judge
The retirement of Justice Ramesh is not just the departure of a respected judge; it represents the loss of a massive case-clearing capacity. Disposing of more than 85,000 cases in under a decade is a feat that underscores his dedication and work ethic. His departure exacerbates an already critical vacancy situation, potentially leading to further delays in justice delivery for countless litigants.
The legal community now looks on as the high court, already operating with reduced capacity, must find ways to manage its substantial caseload. The emphasis now shifts to the urgent need for appointments to fill the mounting vacancies and restore the court's full strength.
