Message: Return type of CI_Session_files_driver::open($save_path, $name) should either be compatible with SessionHandlerInterface::open(string $path, string $name): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice
Message: Return type of CI_Session_files_driver::close() should either be compatible with SessionHandlerInterface::close(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice
Message: Return type of CI_Session_files_driver::read($session_id) should either be compatible with SessionHandlerInterface::read(string $id): string|false, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice
Message: Return type of CI_Session_files_driver::write($session_id, $session_data) should either be compatible with SessionHandlerInterface::write(string $id, string $data): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice
Message: Return type of CI_Session_files_driver::destroy($session_id) should either be compatible with SessionHandlerInterface::destroy(string $id): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice
Message: Return type of CI_Session_files_driver::gc($maxlifetime) should either be compatible with SessionHandlerInterface::gc(int $max_lifetime): int|false, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice
The Madras High Court, dismissed a lawyer's plea challenging transfer of its former Chief Justice Vijaya K. Tahilaramani to Meghalaya High Court.
The division bench comprising of Justice M. Sathyanarayanan and Justice N. Seshasayee observed that the challenge to the order of transfer can be made only at the instance of the transferred Judge himself and not anyone else and as such, the petitioner has no locus standi to maintain this writ petition.
Whether, second transfer of Chief Justice of a High Court to another High Court is permissible? especially in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Whether the proposal for transfer of Chief Justice of a High Court can only be done by the President of India or by the Collegium of the Supreme Court itself
Whether non-consent of the Chief Justice of the High Court for transfer to another High Court can be over-turned or not? If so, by whom?
Whether the Chief Justice of a High Court could be transferred at the verge of retirement, or not?
Whether the office of the Chief Justice of a High Court is transferable, or not ?
Whether mutual transfer of Chief Justices of High Courts can be made or not?
However, the bench only considered the issue whether the petitioner is having locus standi to maintain this writ petition? The bench, referred to the judgment in Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record Association and Others v. Union of India & S.P.Gupta v. Union of India and highlighted the following observations made in the judgment:
Consent of the transferred Judge/Chief Justice is not required for either the first or any subsequent transfer from one High Court to another.
Any transfer made on the recommendation of the Chief Justice of India is not to be deemed to be punitive, and such transfer is not justiciable on any ground.
M. Karpagam vs. The Secretary to the President of India
