RECENTLY, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, judge at the Supreme Court of India, spoke about the executive’s interference in the transfer of High Court judges. Although Justice Bhuyan did not specify which transfer he was referring to, his reference to a Collegium decision – where reasons for transferring a particular judge to a particular High Court at ‘government’s request’ was made public – makes one infer he was referring to the transfer of Justice Atul Sreedharan. Justice Sreedharan was transferred from the Madhya Pradesh High Court to the Allahabad High Court, instead of the Chhattisgarh High Court which the Collegium had initially recommended.
It was heartening to note that Justice Bhuyan expressed his concerns about the manner in which the transfer took place, despite being part of the system. Generally, what we see is that judges experience an epiphany after they retire and then begin to comment on the state of affairs across various issues.
Justice Bhuyan’s concern is not ill-founded. The collegium system, established by the Court itself through judicial creativity, was intended to insulate the judiciary from executive interference in the appointment and transfer of judges, thereby securing judicial independence.
It was heartening to note that Justice Bhuyan expressed his concerns about the manner in which the transfer took place, despite being part of the system.
However, of late, a pattern has emerged—at least in public perception—where judges are sought to be transferred as a mode of punishment, and in some cases, transfers are not effected despite the Collegium’s recommendations.
The same applies to the appointment of judges. From selectively implementing the Collegium’s recommendations, withholding names for years on end, to completely distorting the seniority of candidates, the Collegium’s response has been meek. Though the government was sought to be insulated in matters of appointments and transfers, it has instead been playing a decisive role.
This piece focuses only on the transfer of judges. One can understand the government’s procedural role in the appointment process, since its agencies are required to conduct background checks on the candidates proposed for recommendation. However, for the government to play any role in the transfer of judges is far more insidious.
One wonders what interest the government could possibly have in the transfer of a particular judge from one High Court to another, while at the same time refusing to give effect to other transfers.
The transfer of judges, including a Chief Justice, from one High Court to another is governed by Article 222(1) of the Constitution of India. Such transfers are made for the “better administration of justice”. The consent of a judge is not required for his first or subsequent transfer. The term “better administration of justice” is not defined anywhere.
In the Second Judges Case (1993), a nine-judge Constitution Bench held that the opinion of the Chief Justice of India (‘CJI’) not only has primacy but is also determinative in matters of transfer of High Court Chief Justices and judges.
The story of Justice Sreedharan’s transfer
Returning to the case of Justice Sreedharan. He originally hails from the Madhya Pradesh High Court. He was recommended for transfer to the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh in March 2023. The reason for his transfer—at his own request—was duly published by the Collegium headed by the then CJI D.Y. Chandrachud.
Justice Sreedharan had requested the transfer because his elder daughter was set to begin her legal practice the following year and would appear before the District Court and the Indore Bench of the High Court. Thus, it was a conscious and ethical choice for Justice Sreedharan to move out of his parent High Court.
Justice Sreedharan took charge at the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh. However, once again, the Collegium, now headed by CJI Sanjiv Khanna, decided on March 6, 2025 to repatriate Justice Sreedharan to the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
The statement published by the Collegium gave no reason for such a transfer. It was also unclear how the reason for which he had sought his transfer out of Madhya Pradesh had suddenly become irrelevant—whether his daughter was no longer practising in that High Court, or whether the transfer back to his parent High Court was at his own request?
What is important to highlight is that when Justice Sreedharan was recommended for repatriation to his parent High Court, he was about to become Acting Chief Justice of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, following the retirement of Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan on April 4, 2025.
During his tenure at the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, Justice Sreedharan passed several orders upholding personal liberty and quashed many detention orders under the Public Safety Act, 1978.
Justice Sreedharan returned to the Madhya Pradesh High Court as recommended by the Collegium. However, within months of his repatriation, he was proposed for transfer, first to the Chhattisgarh High Court and then to the Allahabad High Court—at the government’s request—under the Collegium headed by the then CJI B.R. Gavai.
It was perhaps no coincidence that in May 2025, Justice Sreedharan, heading a Division Bench at the Madhya Pradesh High Court, took suo motu action and ordered an FIR against BJP Minister Vijay Shah.
It was perhaps no coincidence that in May 2025, Justice Sreedharan, heading a Division Bench at the Madhya Pradesh High Court, took suo motu action and ordered an FIR against BJP Minister Vijay Shah for using “scurrilous language” against Col. Sofia Quraishi. Col. Quraishi was one of the two women officers who briefed the media regarding Operation Sindoor. And in August 2025, the Collegium recommended his transfer.
The chronology of events surrounding the multiple transfers of Justice Sreedharan speaks for itself. Both the government and the Collegium appear to have been on the same page when it came to his transfers. It’s not the only transfer that has been perceived as punitive. There are several others as well that are widely seen as completely punitive in nature and far from serving “the better administration of justice”.
Past transfers that raised questions
The unceremonious transfer of Justice Sanjib Banerjee, who was functioning as Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, to the Meghalaya High Court is one more such case. Initially, it was speculated that he was transferred because of his remarks castigating the Election Commission of India for allowing political rallies during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Later, in an interview after his retirement, he stated that his reporting to the CJI about corrupt judges was the actual reason for his transfer.
The case of Justice Jayant Patel cannot be forgotten. He was the senior-most judge at the Karnataka High Court and originally from the Gujarat High Court. He resigned in September 2017 after he was sought to be transferred to the Allahabad High Court, where he would lose seniority, despite being next in line for elevation as Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court. As a Gujarat High Court judge, Justice Patel had ordered a CBI investigation into the 2004 Ishrat Jahan encounter case.
In the case of Justice Dr S. Muralidhar, the Collegium withdrew its recommendation to transfer him as Chief Justice of the Madras High Court from the Orissa High Court. The recommendation remained pending for six months. Instead of pushing back, the Collegium chose merely to withdraw its recommendation. Much is already in public domain about his overnight transfer to the Punjab and Haryana High Court a day after he pulled up the Delhi police for their inaction over hate speeches against BJP leaders during Delhi riots.
On August 3, 2023, the Collegium recommended the transfer of as many as nine High Court judges. This also included four judges from the Gujarat High Court, namely Justices Alpesh Y. Kogje, Kumari Gita Gopi, Hemant M. Prachchhak, and Samir J. Dave. To date, these recommendations have not been given effect. There is no information in the public domain as to whether the Collegium withdrew its recommendations, and if so, for what reasons.
Justice K. Vinod Chandran, when he was a judge at the Kerala High Court, was initially recommended for transfer as a judge of the Bombay High Court. This recommendation was never given effect. The Collegium later recommended his appointment as Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court. Even this recommendation was never given effect. The Collegium thereafter recommended his appointment as Chief Justice of the Patna High Court, which was given effect after considerable delay.
The pattern also reveals a lack of consistency in the extent of transparency and disclosure surrounding the appointment and transfer of judges.
A subversion of judicial independence
What emerges from these events is that, in some transfers, both the Collegium and the government appear to be on the same page. In such cases, the transfer is given effect immediately. In certain other transfers, the Collegium and the government appear to not be aligned. In those cases, the government exercises its pocket veto. Then there are transfers at the behest of the government, as in the case of Justice Sreedharan. In every scenario, it is the government that holds the upper hand, which amounts to a complete subversion of judicial independence in matters of judge transfers.
The pattern also reveals a lack of consistency in the extent of transparency and disclosure surrounding the appointment and transfer of judges. Every Chief Justice who heads the Collegium changes the norms according to their own desire. When Justice Chandrachud assumed office as CJI, he restored the practice—originally put in place by the then-CJI Dipak Misra—of uploading detailed resolutions on the website. However, the successors of Justice Chandrachud discontinued even that small semblance of transparency in the Collegium’s decision-making process.
Justice Bhuyan is, therefore, most right with his utterances regarding the independence of the judiciary. His appeal that the same must be maintained at all costs to ensure its continued relevance and legitimacy must resonate with all those who care for the rule of law.