Supreme Court Justice slams judge's transfer as executive overreach
Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has openly criticised the recent transfer of a High Court judge, raising concerns over executive interference in judicial matters. His remarks highlight ongoing tensions between the judiciary and the government, particularly regarding the autonomy of judicial appointments and transfers in India.
The issue has reignited debates about the collegium system, which was designed to limit executive control but still faces challenges in ensuring full judicial independence.
Justice Bhuyan's criticism centred on the transfer of Justice Atul Sreedharan from the Madhya Pradesh High Court to the Allahabad High Court. He argued that the move was made at the Union government's behest, calling it an unwarranted intrusion into judicial affairs. His speech also addressed broader concerns, including a credibility crisis within the judiciary, pointing to instances where judgments were later overruled.
The collegium system, introduced through landmark cases like Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (1993), shifted power from the executive to a group of senior Supreme Court judges. This system was later reinforced in In re Presidential Reference (1998), which made the collegium's recommendations binding, reducing government discretion. A 2015 ruling further expanded the collegium to five judges, requiring transparency in appointments and transfers.
Despite these safeguards, the Indian Constitution does not define clear parameters for transferring High Court judges. Transfers without explicit consent or objective criteria have led to controversies, undermining judicial independence. Historical patterns show that majoritarian regimes have often attempted to influence judicial autonomy, raising questions about the system's resilience.
Justice Bhuyan urged lawyers and judges to speak out publicly against such interventions. He stressed that institutional dissent is essential for preserving judicial integrity, especially when executive influence persists in key decisions like transfers.
The transfer of Justice Sreedharan has once again exposed the friction between judicial independence and executive authority. While the collegium system was meant to protect the judiciary from political interference, gaps in constitutional guidelines leave room for disputes.
Legal experts and judges now face the challenge of reinforcing transparency and fairness in transfers to prevent further erosion of public trust in the judiciary.
