Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan emphasised that judicial transfers are solely for the better administration of justice and fall entirely within the judiciary’s domain. He warned that any government involvement in judge transfers undermines judicial independence and constitutional morality.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
PUNE: Supreme Court Judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan on Saturday strongly asserted that the transfer of judges is an internal matter of the judiciary and that the government should have absolutely no role in the process. He emphasised that judicial transfers are undertaken solely for the better administration of justice and any deviation from this principle threatens judicial independence.
Justice Bhuyan made these remarks while delivering a lecture on “Constitutional Morality and Democratic Governance” at ILS Law College, Pune, as part of the Principal G.V. Pandit Memorial Lecture Series.
Stressing the constitutional position, Justice Bhuyan said:
“Transfer of a judge is always for the better administration of justice. It is an internal matter of the judiciary. The government can have no say in that.”
He cautioned that allowing governmental influence in judicial transfers would defeat the very purpose of insulating the judiciary from external pressure, thereby compromising its independence.
Justice Bhuyan expressed serious concern over instances where collegium resolutions themselves record that judicial transfers were made at the request of the government. He described such disclosures as “deeply troubling”.
“When the collegium itself records that the transfer of a High Court judge was being made at the request of the government, it reveals a striking intrusion into what is constitutionally supposed to be an independent process,”
he observed.
According to him, this amounts to an explicit admission of governmental interference in a process specifically designed to prevent such influence.
Calling it “very unfortunate”, Justice Bhuyan noted that such practices undermine the integrity of the collegium system, which was evolved to ensure judicial independence in appointments and transfers.
Referring to his own judicial journey, Justice Bhuyan shared that he was transferred twice — first from the Gauhati High Court to the Bombay High Court, and later from the Bombay High Court to the Telangana High Court.
He clarified that judicial transfers should never be viewed as punitive:
“I suffered transfer twice… and on each occasion it has worked in my favour. But transfer of a judge is always for the better administration of justice.”
He reiterated that decisions relating to transfers and postings lie exclusively within the judiciary.
Justice Bhuyan defended the collegium system, tracing its evolution to a time when political interference in judicial appointments was rampant.
“Having regard to the malady of political influence and interference playing a disproportionate role in the appointment of judges, the collegium system was the need of the hour,”
he said.
While acknowledging criticisms regarding the lack of transparency and accountability, he maintained that the collegium system remains far superior to alternatives that would expand governmental control over judicial appointments.
“I am not saying the collegium system is perfect. But at the moment, it is a much better option than the alternatives which are on offer,”
he added.
Justice Bhuyan also spoke about threats to judicial independence, stating that the danger does not lie in physical attacks or external security issues.
“We don’t need a platoon of CRPF to guard the courts. Nobody is going to physically attack the courts. The biggest threat to the independence of the judiciary, many say, is from within,”
he warned.
He cautioned that loss of credibility would hollow out the judiciary, even if courts continue to function.
“Judges will be there. Courts will be there. But the heart and soul will evaporate,”
he remarked.
Linking judicial independence to constitutional morality, Justice Bhuyan emphasised that constitutional courts exist to protect rights and liberties even when such decisions are unpopular.
He stated that constitutional morality must prevail over majoritarian views, citing landmark judgments such as Kesavananda Bharati, S.R. Bommai, Navtej Singh Johar, and the Indian Young Lawyers Association.
Read More Reports On Justice Ujjal Bhuyan