<p class="bodytext">Questions about judicial independence in India and the processes of the Supreme Court have been raised in the past. They assume greater significance coming from a serving judge at the Court. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has expressed disappointment over the Supreme Court collegium’s decision to shuffle the official transfer of a high court judge, at the request of the government. The collegium had transferred Justice Atul Sreedharan from the Madhya Pradesh High Court to the Chhattisgarh High Court, but later moved him to the High Court in Allahabad. Considering that transfers of judges in the higher courts are the prerogative of the collegium and that the executive overriding established and independent processes of the judiciary sets an unwelcome precedent, Justice Bhuyan’s concerns are credible.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The recommendation for the transfer in October 2025, based on a reconsideration sought by the government, left Justice Sreedharan disadvantaged. He would have become part of the collegium in the Chhattisgarh High Court, but he stood significantly lower in the seniority ranking at the Allahabad High Court. The reconsideration request was also seen in the light of some of Justice Sreedharan’s rulings, which may not have pleased the government. During his tenure in the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, Justice Sreedharan’s bench struck down several preventive detention orders under the Public Safety Act. In the Madhya Pradesh High Court, a bench he led directed the police to file an FIR against minister Vijay Shah for his remarks against Army officer Colonel Sofiya Qureshi, who briefed the media during Operation Sindoor. The lack of clarity regarding the recommendation for the judge’s transfer to a specific court was noted following the collegium’s decision, raising speculation about the objectives of the move.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The Supreme Court established the collegium system as part of efforts to protect the independence of the judiciary. In 2015, it struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, which envisaged a six-member body to oversee judicial appointments, and retained the collegium system. Justice Bhuyan has echoed concerns others have expressed over the government trying to influence the judiciary and the latter succumbing to the pressure. Former Supreme Court judge Madan B Lokur has said that the government once requested the transfer of a judge from the Delhi High Court over a judgment he had delivered. The collegium did well to disclose the reason for changing its decision regarding the transfer of Justice Sreedharan. But that it entertained the government’s request on the matter goes against some of its key founding principles.</p>
<p class="bodytext">Questions about judicial independence in India and the processes of the Supreme Court have been raised in the past. They assume greater significance coming from a serving judge at the Court. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has expressed disappointment over the Supreme Court collegium’s decision to shuffle the official transfer of a high court judge, at the request of the government. The collegium had transferred Justice Atul Sreedharan from the Madhya Pradesh High Court to the Chhattisgarh High Court, but later moved him to the High Court in Allahabad. Considering that transfers of judges in the higher courts are the prerogative of the collegium and that the executive overriding established and independent processes of the judiciary sets an unwelcome precedent, Justice Bhuyan’s concerns are credible.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The recommendation for the transfer in October 2025, based on a reconsideration sought by the government, left Justice Sreedharan disadvantaged. He would have become part of the collegium in the Chhattisgarh High Court, but he stood significantly lower in the seniority ranking at the Allahabad High Court. The reconsideration request was also seen in the light of some of Justice Sreedharan’s rulings, which may not have pleased the government. During his tenure in the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, Justice Sreedharan’s bench struck down several preventive detention orders under the Public Safety Act. In the Madhya Pradesh High Court, a bench he led directed the police to file an FIR against minister Vijay Shah for his remarks against Army officer Colonel Sofiya Qureshi, who briefed the media during Operation Sindoor. The lack of clarity regarding the recommendation for the judge’s transfer to a specific court was noted following the collegium’s decision, raising speculation about the objectives of the move.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The Supreme Court established the collegium system as part of efforts to protect the independence of the judiciary. In 2015, it struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, which envisaged a six-member body to oversee judicial appointments, and retained the collegium system. Justice Bhuyan has echoed concerns others have expressed over the government trying to influence the judiciary and the latter succumbing to the pressure. Former Supreme Court judge Madan B Lokur has said that the government once requested the transfer of a judge from the Delhi High Court over a judgment he had delivered. The collegium did well to disclose the reason for changing its decision regarding the transfer of Justice Sreedharan. But that it entertained the government’s request on the matter goes against some of its key founding principles.</p>
