The Supreme Court Collegium has launched a very important initiative towards making the functioning of the Indian Judiciary more transparent, accountable and institutionally stronger. Preparations are now being made to end the years-old unwritten traditions and arbitrary working style related to transfers of judges working in various High Courts of the country from one court to another. Till now, it has been observed that transfers of High Court judges have often been decided on informal grounds such as their integrity, judicial conduct, the need for their specific legal expertise in another High Court and at times their personal closeness to a former Chief Justice or former Collegium member. With the aim of bringing about a radical change in this system, the five-member Supreme Court Collegium headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant held a very serious and informal meeting last week. In this high level meeting, it was discussed in detail to prepare a clear, written and transparent policy framework to streamline the entire process of transfer of judges from their native High Court to another High Court. Apart from Chief Justice Surya Kant, this five-member collegium includes Justice Vikram Nath, Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice M.M. Sundaresh and Justice P.S. Narasimha, who unanimously stressed the need for this reform. 'Transfers based on likes and dislikes should be stopped': Discussion on unwritten and unspoken reasons behind transfers The members of the Collegium clearly believe that the tradition of transfers being done arbitrarily or based only on personal likes and dislikes without any solid, objective and certified basis should be stopped immediately. According to a detailed report in 'The Times of India', a judge has been transferred from his native High Court to another High Court for various administrative and circumstantial reasons. For example, an experienced High Court judge at the top of the seniority order is transferred to the High Court of another state so that he can be administratively prepared to take over as the Chief Justice of that High Court in future. Apart from this, there have also been many occasions when a senior judge was sent to another High Court so that a balance or 'buffer' (distance) could be created between the ongoing differences between the current Chief Justice and other senior judges there. On the other hand, there have also been cases where the transfer of a judge was proposed when questions were raised about his integrity or when complaints were received about his conduct contrary to constitutional decorum in the courtroom and public life. From a positive point of view, a judge who has expertise in a particular legal field is also transferred to a High Court where his expertise is in dire need. However, the report also mentions an unwritten reason that has always been discussed in hushed tones in judicial circles—that a judge considered close to a former CJI or a collegium member is transferred as soon as his mentor retires, which sometimes appears to be a settlement of old administrative differences. From the terminology of 'administration of justice' of 2018 to the accounting of transfers till 2026, the recommendations pending with the government will also be considered. There has been a big change in the language and transparency of transfer proposals in the last few years. Till 2018, all these transfers done by the Collegium were wrapped up in uniform official terminology like 'in the interest of better administration of justice', hiding the real reasons behind them. But by the year 2020, this traditional terminology was removed and the collegium proposals started directly mentioning the transfer of a particular judge. If we look at the figures of the last five years, the Supreme Court Collegium has recommended transfer of 18 judges of the High Court in the year 2022, 34 judges in the year 2023, 11 judges in the year 2024, 44 judges in the year 2025 and so far 12 judges in the current year 2026. The members of the Supreme Court Collegium will keep all these practical and constitutional complexities in mind during the upcoming policy formulation. The new policy may also include a clear provision for reconsidering those transfer recommendations which have not been accepted by the central government, i.e. the executive, as there have been several instances where collegium recommendations remained pending with the government for years. Apart from this, it is also being considered to adopt a similar policy on the applications of the judges themselves seeking transfer, because till now the collegium has shown promptness in some cases and adopted an attitude of indifference in others. Transfer should not be used as a punishment, the judge concerned will get a fixed period of time for improvement before taking action. Although the Supreme Court itself has expressed its displeasure in many of its judicial decisions and comments that the transfer of High Court judges should not be used as a 'punishment' or a punishment weapon, yet it is a reality that the main reason behind most of the transfers in the last five years has been the removal of the concerned judge from his native High Court due to some complaint or the other. Is. Now the idea is gaining momentum within the judicial circles and collegium that if any complaint is received regarding the conduct or working style of a judge, then the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court should intervene in the matter before directly transferring him. Under this proposal, the Chief Justice will communicate with the judge concerned and give him an opportunity to improve his behavior or judicial working style within a certain time frame, and only then the collegium will reach a final decision.
