The new vacancies and new hopes in Madras High Court...

The number of judges in the Madras high court is all set to come down by at least seven, thanks to the impending transfers, elevations and retirements. At present, the court has 57 judges, as against the sanctioned strength of 60.

In effect, the higher judiciary, which is at the fag end of its five-week summer recess, must find suitable candidates to fill up a total of 10 judicial vacancies this year.

In addition to the three existing vacancies, a total of seven seats are expected to fall vacant in the High Court this year. While the names of justice S J Mukhopadhaya and justice Prafulla Kumar Misra have already been cleared for elevation as chief justices of Himachal Pradesh High Court and Patna High Court respectively, two others -- justice Raja Elango and justice Aruna Jagadeesan -- are to be transferred to two neighbouring states shortly.

While justice A Kulasekaran is scheduled to retire from service on June 13, two others -- justice S Ashok Kumar and justice S R Singharavelu -- who were transferred out of Tamil Nadu a couple of years ago, are also slated to attain superannuation in July-August.

"By August, we will have 10 vacancies to fill. The selection process will begin soon after the court reopens on June 8," said a senior judge.

About a year after the sanctioned strength of the Madras High Court was increased from 42 to 60, it received a batch of 14 new judges on March 31. Soon after touching an all-time high of 58 judges, justice A C Arumugaperumal Adityan retired, bringing down the strength to 57.

Though this year's last bout of retirements is slated to occur in July-August, nothing prevents the higher judiciary from initiating the selection process and recommending names for appointment. In fact, the Supreme Court, which has the final say in selection, and the Central Government have repeatedly called upon the High Courts to shortlist candidates for even anticipated vacancies.

"As chief justice HL Gokhale is from Maharashtra, which is known to recommend youngsters for constitutional seats, we expect him to consider us for appointment," said an advocate, who was overlooked last time apparently because he was not yet 45 years old. "There is no rationale to have 45 years as benchmark, especially when even advocates below 40 have been cleared for appointment in some other states," he said.

This time around, the competition will be most intense among advocates aged between 45 and 50, said a senior jurist.