Indian judiciary faces crisis as judges decry government meddling in transfers

The transfer of judges in India remains a contentious issue, with recent criticism highlighting ongoing tensions between the judiciary and the executive. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has spoken out against what he sees as undue government influence in judicial transfers, raising concerns over judicial independence. His remarks come as the Collegium, led by the Chief Justice, now holds authority over such transfers—much like judicial appointments.

Justice Bhuyan specifically criticised the transfer of Justice Atul Sreedharan from the Madhya Pradesh High Court to the Allahabad High Court. He claimed the move was made at the Union government's behest, calling it an example of executive overreach into judicial affairs. Such transfers, he argued, can affect a judge's standing in the Collegium and their role in administrative decisions.

The Indian Constitution does not define clear rules for transferring High Court judges. Since 1993, the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) has aimed to make transfers more consultative, requiring the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to propose moves with input from the Collegium and the judge involved. This marked a shift from the 1970s, when the Indira Gandhi government unilaterally transferred 16 judges—such as Justice V. Ramaswami—without consultation, using executive orders under Article 222.

Despite these reforms, executive influence persists. Justice Bhuyan also pointed to cases where judgments were overturned, questioning the judiciary's credibility. His speech underscored how institutional dissent remains a key tool for preserving judicial integrity in India.

Historically, majoritarian regimes have attempted to control the judiciary through transfers. While the Collegium now oversees the process, several recent transfers have still faced criticism from both the judiciary and legal observers.

The debate over judicial transfers reflects broader concerns about the balance of power between the judiciary and the government. With the Collegium now managing transfers, the system aims to reduce executive interference. Yet, as Justice Bhuyan's remarks show, questions about transparency and fairness in these decisions remain unresolved.