Supreme Court judge slams Collegium over controversial judicial transfer decision
Supreme Court judge slams Collegium over controversial judicial transfer decision
Supreme Court judge slams Collegium over controversial judicial transfer decision
Judicial transfers in India have once again sparked controversy after Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan criticised the Collegium's decision to move Justice Atul Sreedharan. The transfer, originally proposed for the Chhattisgarh High Court, was redirected to Allahabad instead. Bhuyan's remarks have reignited debates over executive influence in judicial appointments and the lack of clear constitutional guidelines.
The issue of judicial transfers has long been contentious in India. The Constitution does not define specific parameters for moving High Court judges, leaving room for disputes. While the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) introduced in 1993 aimed to formalise the process, critics argue that executive interference persists.
Justice Bhuyan's recent criticism targeted the Collegium, led by Chief Justice B R Gavai, for altering Justice Sreedharan's transfer destination. Bhuyan claimed the change was made at the Union government's request, raising concerns about political meddling. He also highlighted inconsistencies in past judgments, warning that such reversals undermine judicial credibility.
Historical examples further illustrate this tension. During the 1975-1977 Emergency, transfers like those of Justices H.R. Khanna and A.N. Ray were widely seen as politically driven by Indira Gandhi's administration. More recently, delays in Justice Akil Kureshi's elevation to the Supreme Court (2015-2018) were linked to government opposition over his rulings in Gujarat. Similarly, Justice S. Muralidhar's 2021 transfer from Delhi to Punjab & Haryana drew criticism, as it followed his suo motu actions on the Delhi riots.
The Centre's role in judicial transfers remains pivotal. Such moves can reshape High Court Collegiums, influencing key administrative decisions. Legal experts argue that public dissent from judges and lawyers is essential to safeguard judicial independence. Without it, majoritarian regimes may continue to erode the judiciary's autonomy.
The latest transfer dispute underscores ongoing concerns about transparency and fairness in judicial appointments. Bhuyan's call for greater accountability reflects broader worries over executive overreach. For now, the debate continues over how to balance institutional integrity with constitutional ambiguity.
Britain's generational divide in cooking skills and meal habits revealed
From jacket potatoes to scrambled eggs, Britain's kitchens tell a story of confidence—and repetition. Why do Gen Z and millennials think they're better cooks?
Fort Worth's dining renaissance blends bold flavors and timeless classics
A food critic's decades-long watch reveals Fort Worth's transformation—where hidden alleys and historic haunts now serve some of Texas' most exciting bites. Ready to taste the revival?
How 18th-Century Maryland's Food Divided the Elite and the Enslaved
Thomas Jefferson dined on Parmesan ice cream while enslaved cooks introduced okra and peppers. One state's kitchen tells America's divided culinary story.
Estonia's domestic violence crisis exposes deadly system flaws after tragic deaths
A man's violent rampage ended in two deaths—and left a survivor fighting for life. Now, Estonia faces hard questions about how to stop the cycle of abuse before it turns deadly.