Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan Warns That Centre Has No Role In HC Judge Transfer

Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has raised a red flag over what he termed an alarming erosion of judicial independence, questioning a recent collegium decision that modified the transfer of a high court judge after an intervention by the Union government.

Delivering the G.V. Pandit Memorial Lecture on “Constitutional Morality and Democratic Governance” at ILS Law College in Pune, Justice Bhuyan underscored that the Constitution draws a clear boundary between the executive and the judiciary—one that must not be crossed. He said the mere recording of a government request in a collegium resolution concerning judicial transfer reflects an unsettling departure from this principle.

Without referring to any judge by name, Justice Bhuyan posed a pointed question to his audience--"Should a judge be moved from one high court to another because his rulings proved inconvenient to those in power?" Such a practice, he warned, would undermine the very foundation of an independent judiciary, which forms a basic feature of India’s constitutional framework.

The observations come against the backdrop of a collegium decision taken in October, where an earlier proposal to transfer a judge from the Madhya Pradesh High Court to the Chhattisgarh High Court was revisited. The collegium subsequently recommended a transfer to the Allahabad High Court, noting that the change followed a reconsideration sought by the Central government.

The revised posting had significant institutional consequences. A transfer to Chhattisgarh would have placed the judge within the high court’s collegium, whereas his seniority would be substantially lower at the Allahabad High Court.

Justice Bhuyan reiterated that transfers of high court judges are intended strictly to improve the administration of justice and cannot be deployed as instruments of reprisal. He stressed that the Central government has no constitutional role in deciding where judges are posted or transferred, calling it an area reserved exclusively for the judiciary.

He cautioned that when the collegium acknowledges executive input in such decisions, it exposes the process to political influence—precisely what the collegium system was designed to prevent. Any dilution of this autonomy, he said, weakens public confidence in judicial impartiality.

Referring to earlier attempts by the government to alter the collegium system, Justice Bhuyan said the judiciary’s resistance makes it even more imperative for collegium members to safeguard the system’s independence. Its credibility, he added, depends on strict adherence to constitutional morality.

He also warned that threats to judicial independence do not always originate from outside the institution. Judges must remain alert to internal pressures, including ideological or political leanings. “Democracy suffers the moment court outcomes appear predictable based on who is hearing the case,” Justice Bhuyan said, asserting that judicial independence is an inviolable pillar of democratic governance.

Also Read:Pre-Poll Freebies an ‘Important Matter’: Supreme Court