In the matter of P D Dinakaran vs Sikkim (strictly an opinion-trial and not a legal one), one could say that it is the government and governance that should be put on trial.

With corruption charges stacked sky-high against him, Dinakaran was not deemed fit for the Karnataka High Court by the state's bar association. The government, in the absence of a precedence in such a matter, transferred him to the Sikkim High Court as the chief justice - amidst much protest from the Sikkim state bar association.

In doing so, the government has shown little respect for Sikkim's judiciary, bar association and the institution of the high court.

Why did the government conveniently transfer the judge to Sikkim and not try to establish a precedence for cases where a member of the judiciary face serious charges of corruption? Is it not a gross disrespect of a state or region to be chosen for such transfers?

If the government claims that transfers are not punitive, can it explain then why it transferred him at all?  While he was debarred from performing judicial duties at the Karanataka HC, he has been appointed the chief justice of Sikkim.

The transfer highlights a constitutional flaw when it comes to punitive and abeyance provisions for the judiciary. But should Sikkim and others states be perpetually deemed expendable in such a manner while the government just shelves responsibilities for a later date?